abneo3sierra Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 From a Democrat congressman from Georgia who worried aloud while questioning a US Navy officer, that additional troops being based on the Island of Guam would cause the island to "tip over and capsize",http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2849330/congressman_hank_johnson_afraid_guam.html through then candidate Obama telling a reporter he had been to "all 57 states" (note, there are only 50) to also then VP-candidate Sarah Palin telling reporters she "can see Russia through my window"...it just makes me wonder...should we not have some sort of IQ test for our candidates? Say...if you are smarter than a 5th grader, you can be congressman...maybe make Senate a little harder since they stay there longer..so let's say 7th Grade..Pres./VP..maybe should have to be at least equivalent of high school. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 I think it's also a factor of media management. many politicians can look good when their every statement is polished and rehearsed. It's when they have to ad-lib they get into trouble and we see them for what they are: party hacks of limited perspective and intelligence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 In December 2009, Johnson revealed that he had been battling Hepatitis C for over a decade, which resulted in slow speech and a tendency to regularly get "lost in thought in the middle of a discussion".[24] Johnson said that he learned he had the disease in 1998 but does not know how he contracted it. The disease has damaged his liver and led to thyroid problems.[24] He was treated with a combination of ribavirin and interferon at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.[24] In February 2010, Johnson finished an experimental treatment for Hepatitis C, resulting in weight gain and increased energy.[25]But did nothing for his mental acuity unfortunately. A shame for him. I wondered who he beat to be elected and unfortunately she seems even a tad wackier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney The overall feeling must be that some parts of the US are not well served by their politicians. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 The overall feeling must be that some parts of the US are not well served by their politicians. And at least some of that is due to not being well served by the electorate. The people will not get better government until they demand it and show that they mean it. The fact that pols like Sarah Palin and worse can even attain elective office does not speak well for the discrimination of the average voter. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 The people will not get better government until they demand it and show that they mean it.Michael Right on. Like actually using their right to vote and making sure that congressional seats are always challenged. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share Posted April 13, 2011 The sad thing is (and, some of these people I would actually like as PEOPLE, just dont like as politicians...I could see having a drink with the Palins, the Obamas, etc) that most people will vote for a party, no matter who is on the ticket..it could be Satan on the Dem ticket, against God on the Repub side, or Hitler on the Repub side, against God on the Dems...and the elections would still be fairly close as 40%+/- vote always Dem, 40%+/- always Repub..so it is only that extra 20% that really think about things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Well that's party politics and it's why in the Australian system so much effort is put into attracting 'swinging' voters and marginal seats. I've always had the luck to live in the bluest of blue ribbon conservative seats at state and federal level. It means our area always gets diddly squat no matter who is in power because both parties know the seat will never change hands. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share Posted April 13, 2011 Well that's party politics and it's why in the Australian system so much effort is put into attracting 'swinging' voters and marginal seats. I've always had the luck to live in the bluest of blue ribbon conservative seats at state and federal level. It means our area always gets diddly squat no matter who is in power because both parties know the seat will never change hands. Is probably one of the best arguments there, for an end to "parties"..give people real choices...ahh,maybe just a dream, but yeah..parties pretty much suck, in my view..well, the political kind, anyway..nothing like a good keg party.... Actually...come to think of it, that WOULD be an awesome name for a political party.."vote for the keg party...we guarantee you will at least have a real fun next 2 years..." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 So would a change to the voting system improve the US system? I am beginning to believe choosing a person by lot could be no worse and potentially better. Of course there would be rules: Over 30 No lawyers : ) And had paid taxes choose ten of those per district and then put them with a potted researched biography, a brief message from the candidate, on a sheet sans picture and gender identification and give the voters a chance. A news black-out other than the official stuff. Or leave all the details to the day of polling... Could not possibly be worse than the current beg for money pay back favours model. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Is probably one of the best arguments there, for an end to "parties"..give people real choices... So you want a democracy where people are not allowed free association and the right to air collective views? Or do you want a multi-party democracy like Italy or Israel or whatever where you get completely ludicrous alliances forming unstable coalitions that are always one step away from dissolving and hostage to extremist demands? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share Posted April 13, 2011 Aff..probably neither of those choices..nothing wrong with "collective views" except that it seems these always end up hostage themselves to the "party line" As just an example..generally I would consider myself a conservative..here, a "Republican"..yet there are many things Republicans as a party favor, that I do not..they are anti-abortion,anti-gay marriage,etc...while in these I am mostly on the other side of believing government should stay out of people's way...but if I were a politician, I would find myself,because of my 'overall' views, having to support things that I really do not support at all. So my 'ideal' system, would be say..Joe the doctor, or Marty the lawyer, or Ted the mechanic...running as "themselves"...novel thought....expressing their own views on subjects...maybe they are "right wing" in something, and "left wing" in another thing, such as myself,and, I suspect,most everyday people....they should not have to toe a party line, in order to even be considered as a serious candidate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Here in the UK we have a party honest to be called the Monster Raving Loony Party Manifesto Hypocrites It is proposed that all politicians be made to swear a "hippocratic oath", preventing them by law from being Hypocrites. All politicians should be made to stand by their policies, or or at least admit that they were wrong. Needles Due to the increasing number of children afraid of needles, I propose the destruction of the tedious, scary and often painful process of school vaccinations. Instead, I propose that highly trained nurses should be given free reign on the playground with specially modified tranquillizer rifles which apply vaccinations as well as a tranquillizer. This would have two main benefits: It would be less scary for the children as they will not know what hit them, also it will be more fun for the nurses Also we have independent candidates, notably Martin Bell, who stood as anti-sleaze... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bell Hamilton was trounced, and Martin Bell was elected an MP with a majority of 11,077 votes – overturning a Conservative majority of over 22,000 – and thus became the first successful independent parliamentary candidate since 1951. IIRC Wasn't Ross Perot an independent candidate in a US Presidential election? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Aff..probably neither of those choices..nothing wrong with "collective views" except that it seems these always end up hostage themselves to the "party line" As just an example..generally I would consider myself a conservative..here, a "Republican"..yet there are many things Republicans as a party favor, that I do not..they are anti-abortion,anti-gay marriage,etc...while in these I am mostly on the other side of believing government should stay out of people's way...but if I were a politician, I would find myself,because of my 'overall' views, having to support things that I really do not support at all. So my 'ideal' system, would be say..Joe the doctor, or Marty the lawyer, or Ted the mechanic...running as "themselves"...novel thought....expressing their own views on subjects...maybe they are "right wing" in something, and "left wing" in another thing, such as myself,and, I suspect,most everyday people....they should not have to toe a party line, in order to even be considered as a serious candidate. Fair enough. The problem is really then that in many democracies it is becoming increasingly harder for non-party people to put up the resources to campaign in the face of the budgets that the parties have. And of course those budgets are kicked in by donors who want some payback... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSBoxer Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I have often thought that anyone who actually wants to be elected to government office should be disqualified due to a lack of mental facilities. I am also close to supporting the concept that only those that actively contribute to government coffers should have a vote. I know this is not possible, and has a multitude of problems with dis-enfranchisement. But I am a firm believer in the old quote "A democracy will only last until the people realize they can vote themselves money out of the treasury". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share Posted April 13, 2011 MSBoxer, I agree with that entirely..I do not believe that those who contribute nothing, should gain anything..and usually the way it works, is they gain the most. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Is probably one of the best arguments there, for an end to "parties"..give people real choices...ahh,maybe just a dream, but yeah..parties pretty much suck, in my view... I'm going to present a contrary view. I think it is helpful to the electorate to have identifiable political philosophies to choose among. And it is also necessary to have party discipline so that candidates once elected hold to the philosophy that they were elected to represent. That's not the problem. The problem is that the whole system has become so corrupted that it doesn't matter what a party says it will do. By the time it attains much power, it is going to sell its services to the highest bidder. This has become so commonplace that most voters don't seem to expect anything different. If a candidate or a party were to arise with a sincere intent to play it otherwise, they have a long road to overcome cynical indifference and disbelief. It has become difficult bordering on impossible to get anything started that might actually improve the lives of people. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I am also close to supporting the concept that only those that actively contribute to government coffers should have a vote. I take it you are of the belief that our economic system rewards (i.e., pays) those who make a contribution to the overall well-being of society, and does so strictly in proportion to the size and quality of that contribution? And that the only way to get really, really rich is to do something really, really good? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 So would a change to the voting system improve the US system? I am beginning to believe choosing a person by lot could be no worse and potentially better. If I recall correctly, the late William F. Buckley used to say that he would rather be governed by the first 435 people in the Boston phone book than the politicians actually in the Congress. Can't say that I disagree with him all that much. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I do recall a sci-fi short stoy once where "the voter" was chosen by lot from among the registered millions, then a computer checked out his/her attitudes & "elected" representatives that reflected those. Of course there were billions spent trying to figure out who "the voter" was going to be, influence anyone who might be him/her, etc. So the phone book sounds like a better idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share Posted April 13, 2011 I'm going to present a contrary view. I think it is helpful to the electorate to have identifiable political philosophies to choose among. And it is also necessary to have party discipline so that candidates once elected hold to the philosophy that they were elected to represent. That's not the problem. The problem is that the whole system has become so corrupted that it doesn't matter what a party says it will do. By the time it attains much power, it is going to sell its services to the highest bidder. This has become so commonplace that most voters don't seem to expect anything different. If a candidate or a party were to arise with a sincere intent to play it otherwise, they have a long road to overcome cynical indifference and disbelief. It has become difficult bordering on impossible to get anything started that might actually improve the lives of people. Michael I agree with your "contrary" view lol... the difference between Utopia and the real world unfortunately.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share Posted April 13, 2011 If I recall correctly, the late William F. Buckley used to say that he would rather be governed by the first 435 people in the Boston phone book than the politicians actually in the Congress. Can't say that I disagree with him all that much. Steve I would probably take that choice some days..at least they all would be "real people" who are acquainted with buying gas for their cars, paying a mortgage,etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I would probably take that choice some days..at least they all would be "real people" who are acquainted with buying gas for their cars, paying a mortgage,etc. Maybe so. But how long before they were tainted. Look at Joe the Plumber and how he was inexorably sucked into the party machine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 14, 2011 Author Share Posted April 14, 2011 sad but true.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I have often thought that anyone who actually wants to be elected to government office should be disqualified due to a lack of mental facilities. Less 'lack of mental faculties', for, though it can be a tough job, there are also plenty of potential rewards. More because "Power attracts the corruptible". It's well to be suspicious of the motives of those who seek power over others' lives. I am also close to supporting the concept that only those that actively contribute to government coffers should have a vote. I know this is not possible, and has a multitude of problems with dis-enfranchisement. But I am a firm believer in the old quote "A democracy will only last until the people realize they can vote themselves money out of the treasury". It's not possible, no, nor ethically desirable. Nor would it even lead to any disenfranchisement, since everyone pays taxes on something: sales taxes, import/export duties and the like. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 We have four possibilities here: 1] Improve the candidates 2] Improve the party system 3] Change the way the current government works 4] Re-think what democracy means In reverse order 4] My suggestion of people chosen by lot. To provide some continuity those retiring after a term are reuired to vote for a third of their number to continue for a second/third/fourth term etc. Therefore those that are effective should become a core. We do get away from those that seek election and there can be no argument that the Congress is rigged between two Parties. 3] Change the way the Governemnent works. AFAIK every 4 years there is potential change in the Department of States and the incoming hack has an agenda. And friends and relatives etc. Should the power of elected and appointed officials be moderated. There can be no doubt that countermanding directions every 4 years cannot be efficient. The number of ways are numerous. Probably more than I can add here - but perhaps nt allowing add-ons to bills for pork purposes. Have long term policies recommended by experts discussed passed and agreed. To stop such a project requires more than 2/3 majority or wome such thing. How about the Departments propose and Congress becomes a talking shop on the merits. 2] The party system as exists in the US is very much looser than in European countries which means the Presidential candidates do not necessarily have a decent track record to be judged on. VP Palin? I am not quite sure how it can be improved other than people vote for Congess and Congess votes for the President and Vice-President. No party would then be pressured to put up a moron because they look good on TV. 1] A tricky one. If one allows anyone to sstand as being a sign of democracy then you are a trifle snookered. However it does not seem fair, given how without money there are generally only a few realistic candidates, that the electorate should see hoe thwey perform And I am not talking sound bites. : ) All candidates would be required to do comprehension, simple maths, geography, and perhaps some world history. The scores and the test then released to all the electorate so they can assess the stupidity or otherwise of the candidates. I no way am I suggesting that these should be hard. Knowing where Afghanistan, England and France are would be a minimum : ) Knowing Canada and Mexico is unimportant. Comprehension is very important so failing simple comprhension would be fairly disastrous. Ditto maths. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.