It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We need a better way to vet candiates running for office and I have an idea

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bluntone22
The worst way to pick a president is by letting the American voter decide.


Maybe, but it is currently the most fair way to select our government out of the existing governmental systems in existence. We need to make it work because if we don't things could be much much worse.



I agree it is the best way but I think the voters need to be informed voters.




posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Edumakated

I like everything but number 2.
Social security is welfare so retired folks couldn't vote?

Disabled couldn't vote?

A working mother on assistance couldn't vote?



The problem is you can't have people who depend on government voting themselves more benefits paid for by other voters. This is why it is so hard get legitimate and needed reforms to programs like social security now.

I know it is tricky, but it is a serious problem because we get politicians promising more giveaways to these groups to get themselves elected and to maintain their offices.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Poor idea because it would actually exclude more people from the process.
Rich establishment types have the time and resources to study for civics exams.

I am sure Hillary Clinton, probably the most unqualified person ever to run for public office, would pass a civics exam. Being able to swat up and lie about your intentions doesn't make one qualified. Vision and integrity are more important - after all elected officials have teams to handle detail and advise them.

The problem with the system is not about civics understanding - it is about a corrupt elite monopolising federal, state and local offices.

Perhaps ask yourself a question - why do you want to change a system that has worked in the USA, at least at a macro level, just because you don't like the outcome? Embrace democracy instead of trying to fit things to suit your own ideals.


edit on 12/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I think it's a rather refreshing reminder, DT's victory, that even non-politicians can win.

To me a lifelong politician is more or less a piece of garbage, so knowing that it's possible to elect someone without any political experience is a good feeling.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
The system is broken.

1) Voters need competency tests. I don't think anyone should be able to vote unless they can show basic understanding of our system. When you have a significant number of people who can't name the three branches of government or even the current Vice President, these people should not be voting.

See. This is unconstitutional. As decent as it sounds, what would be the official cutoff point in knowledge to determine if you can vote or not? My goal isn't to break the Republic further. It's to try to get on top of the problem again.


2) I don't think you should be able to vote unless you are a tax payer. I also don't think you should be able to vote while being on the dole like welfare.

The first part of this is already true. Everyone pays taxes. The second point is massively discriminatory against poor people and would never happen.

Though here's a thought experiment. What happens to every government in history when the rich run the government while the poor cannot participate?


3) We need term limits for congress & senate. The President is a figure head. Most of the problems we have are coming from congress and senate. I don't think anyone should be able to serve more than two terms in the Senate and maybe 3 or 4 in Congress.

I agree with this.


4) To prevent future BS, let's just all agree that anyone running for congress, senate, or Presidency should have to release school transcripts, personal and business tax returns, and birth certificate

As I told another poster, the more information the better. This is ok in my book too.


5) Congress & senate should be a part-time. They should be entitled to cover any expenses associated with the job, but there should be no compensation. There should also be no pension or other benefits like healthcare. Congress and senate should have to use the same exact programs and benefits as the general public. I don't want professional politicians and people who don't have real jobs being in office.

I'm not sure that would fix much... Congressmen make a lot of their money from lobby efforts. Their salary, while a bit excessive for what they do, isn't what is making them rich.


6) Lobbying after being office should not be permitted for at least five years.

Trump tried this and even he couldn't stick to it. We need to overhaul the lobby system if we want to get lobbying out of government, not band-aid it with simple rules like this.


7) Contributions by individuals is fine, but I have an issue when associations are making donations. I don't care if it is association of Realtors or Unions or NRA or whoever. I don't want our politicians beholden to large organizations. If the members want to ban together INDIVIDUALLY it is one thing, but they can't do it as an official group.

I agree. Citizens United needs to go.


8) Fixing Tax Code: One of the reasons I am for a simplified tax system is that the tax code has become who politicians reward their lobbyist by carving out deductions and other favors within the tax system. If we have a simplified system, then we remove a huge area of corruption and graft.

Good luck there... This may be the biggest stretch of your suggestions. This is another undertaking Trump is attempting that isn't working out like he pitched.


9) Legislation should be simplified and focused. There is no reason for bills to be 2000 pages full of non-relevant amendments and pork. IF you want a bill on something, if you can't communicate it in less than 20 pages there is a problem.

Uh yes. Nuance is important and if a bill requires 2000 pages to address different situations and legal aspects then so be it. If you limit the size of your bills you also limit the marginal effectiveness they have.


10) Every regulation or legislation should be up for review of efficacy at least every 10 years if not sooner. At that point, they can vote to either continue, amend or remove.

I think that would clutter up legislative time on the calendar and this isn't a realistic scenario.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter
I think it's a rather refreshing reminder, DT's victory, that even non-politicians can win.

To me a lifelong politician is more or less a piece of garbage, so knowing that it's possible to elect someone without any political experience is a good feeling.


Agree - and it astounds me that people are rallying around the establishment just because their guy/gal didn't win.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bluntone22
The worst way to pick a president is by letting the American voter decide.


Maybe, but it is currently the most fair way to select our government out of the existing governmental systems in existence. We need to make it work because if we don't things could be much much worse.



I agree it is the best way but I think the voters need to be informed voters.

I would hope for that situation as well, but forcing them to be informed or punishing them for not being informed is the wrong way to do things. That is the path to authoritarianism.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Eliminate the use of teleprompters.

When the American people can hear the candidates speak for themselves, their abilities become apparent.

Knowing the inner workings of DC isn't the greatest benefit when it comes to have a leader for the country.

President Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor and how many times was he struck down in the Supreme Court?

Knowing the law and adhering to the law are two different matters.

Questions directed at individuals, without the benefit of foreknowledge or reading the prewritten answers from a screen, could give a better insight into the candidates. Both in the answers they give and they amount of time they take to formulate those answers.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
1) Voters need competency tests.

I agree, but since voting is a right, not a privilege, it's not an appropriate expectation.


2) I don't think you should be able to vote unless you are a tax payer. I also don't think you should be able to vote while being on the dole like welfare.

Again, voting is a right for all citizens, no matter if they avoid paying taxes or need (or abuse) government assistance.


3) We need term limits for congress & senate.


Absolutely. The job of Representative or Senator was never meant to be a lifetime gig...or even a full-time job.


4) To prevent future BS, let's just all agree that anyone running for congress, senate, or Presidency should have to release school transcripts, personal and business tax returns, and birth certificate

Nope, I disagree, as all of those (save maybe for a birth certificate) are protected by law for a reason. Simply running for federal office should not force someone to give up those protections. As a voter, it would be nice to see them all, but as an advocate for privacy, I can't support such a thing.


5) Congress & senate should be a part-time. They should be entitled to cover any expenses associated with the job, but there should be no compensation. There should also be no pension or other benefits like healthcare. Congress and senate should have to use the same exact programs and benefits as the general public. I don't want professional politicians and people who don't have real jobs being in office.

Agree with most of this, although health coverage should be in there because we should have a vested interested in supporting the health of our governmental leaders. That said, it should be relatively minimal and should absolutely end the day that they leave office.


6) Lobbying after being office should not be permitted for at least five years.

Nope. Lifetime ban after serving in office--it creates too much of a conflict of interest while they're in office.


7) Contributions by individuals is fine, but I have an issue when associations are making donations. I don't care if it is association of Realtors or Unions or NRA or whoever. I don't want our politicians beholden to large organizations. If the members want to ban together INDIVIDUALLY it is one thing, but they can't do it as an official group.

I could get behind this--and the biggest bonus would be that there would be less money available, so we'd see dramatically less advertisements.


8) Fixing Tax Code: One of the reasons I am for a simplified tax system is that the tax code has become who politicians reward their lobbyist by carving out deductions and other favors within the tax system. If we have a simplified system, then we remove a huge area of corruption and graft.

Agreed. We need simple tax rates, and we need to rid ourselves of all deductions for personal income taxes. Simplify, simplify, simplify. Maybe even swapping to a consumption tax versus income...


9) Legislation should be simplified and focused.

Again...agreed. Every single topic should be its own bill, and there should be zero add-ons that have nothing to do with the original subject matter of the bill. A lot of this would be aided by no allowing attorneys to become politicians (that's a joke...sort of).


10) Every regulation or legislation should be up for review of efficacy at least every 10 years if not sooner. At that point, they can vote to either continue, amend or remove.

I could get behind this, too, but man, those initial reviews would take forever, but eventually it would be a relatively smooth process--and a reminder to not pass ridiculous laws all of the time.

You certainly have a few good ideas here that mimic my own concerns with our federal government, and it all stems, IMO, from no term limits and the reality that we've allowed it to get too big, covering aspects of American life that it was never meant to govern.
edit on 12-10-2017 by SlapMonkey because: posted too soon



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Here is a better idea.
Term limits.

Build a system that ensures politics is NOT a career.
How about 2 years across the board before elections and a maximum term of 4 years. Now THAT would make a big change.
edit on 12/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Poor idea because it would actually exclude more people from the process.
Rich establishment types have the time and resources to study for civics exams.

First. I specifically said that these tests regardless of answers given would never disqualify anyone from running.


I am sure Hillary Clinton, probably the most unqualified person ever to run for public office, would pass a civics exam. Being able to swat up and lie about your intentions doesn't make one qualified. Vision and integrity are more important - after all elected officials have teams to handle detail and advise them.

This paragraph doesn't even deserve a response.


The problem with the system is not about civics understanding - it is about a corrupt elite monopolising federal, state and local offices.

Perhaps ask yourself a question - why do you want to change a system that has worked in the USA, at least at a macro level, just because you don't like the outcome? Embrace democracy instead of trying to fit things to suit your own ideals.

Because realistically no system is perfect and we can always improve on a concept to closer attain the ideal system. Things work great until they don't. When they stop working well, it behooves people to figure out why and change things so they work well again. Your knee-jerk resistance to change that you are displaying in this thread is what is contributing to the stagnation of my government.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Regarding the testing, I'd propose the same test that we give to immigrants when they become citizens. The test covers basics of our country and system. If immigrants need to know this stuff, then surely it is not asking too much that those born here demonstrate the same knowledge. Heck, have it as part of a high school class.

Everyone doesn't pay taxes. Half the country doesn't pay FEDERAL income taxes. You cannot have a situation where one half knows they can't vote themselves the money of the other half. This is why I think EVERYONE should pay some taxes, even if it is $50 bucks. All citizens need to understand how government affects their pockets. If you aren't paying sh*t, why do you care?



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Interesting approach, but the only federal election, really, is the office of the president. The rest are state elections and smaller. So, are you only thinking for the president, or extending it out to Congressmen as well when they campaign and officially throw in their hat?


I want Congressmen to be included in this list that have to take this test too. Any federally elected official should have to take this test and the answers they gave released to the public before people vote on their office.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: eNumbra
My only concern is how to maintain any non-partisan committee as being non-partisan; everything at the end of the day requires vigilance, something many people can’t be bothered with.

Yeah. This is a tough issue to deal with in the age of Trump politicizing every department attached to the government, but if departments like the CBO can stay non-partisan in the current political climate then I'm sure we can figure out rules so this department can remain non-partisan too.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Regarding the testing, I'd propose the same test that we give to immigrants when they become citizens. The test covers basics of our country and system. If immigrants need to know this stuff, then surely it is not asking too much that those born here demonstrate the same knowledge. Heck, have it as part of a high school class.

Not a bad idea. This was actually a point I was considering saying when I was thinking up this idea a few days ago. You are right. It's stupid that an immigrant to the country has to know more about how our country works than an actual politician that runs it.


Everyone doesn't pay taxes. Half the country doesn't pay FEDERAL income taxes. You cannot have a situation where one half knows they can't vote themselves the money of the other half. This is why I think EVERYONE should pay some taxes, even if it is $50 bucks. All citizens need to understand how government affects their pockets. If you aren't paying sh*t, why do you care?

Aha! You had to qualify your answer because you know that everyone does in fact pay taxes, but you only care about one specific type of tax that people aren't paying so as to distort your message. No you are wrong. Not letting people who don't pay federal income taxes vote is SUPER discriminatory. Again, what happens to the poor in EVERY government that lets the rich run it while the poor cannot participate?



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I you sure the 'knee-jerk resistance' is not coming from you?
Hundreds of years of elections and because you don't like Trump getting elected you believe there is a fundamental issue that requires setting exam questions for politicians?
You already have 18 months of speeches, endless debates, interviews and ads for people to make up their minds. Do you think people did not know Trump had no experience in politics and had his flaws? They decided to put him in office anyway. It's called democracy.
edit on 12/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eNumbra
My only concern is how to maintain any non-partisan committee as being non-partisan; everything at the end of the day requires vigilance, something many people can’t be bothered with.

Yeah. This is a tough issue to deal with in the age of Trump politicizing every department attached to the government, but if departments like the CBO can stay non-partisan in the current political climate then I'm sure we can figure out rules so this department can remain non-partisan too.


Who says the CBO is non-partisan? Just because a group claims to be non-partisan doesn't mean it is or isn't manipulated. It is well known that the CBO can be manipulated because the rules they operate under are too literal.

Heck, even your boy, Jonathan Gruber admitted that the the CBO was manipulated to get a more favorable score for Obamacare.

"This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO did not score the mandate as taxes..."



Yes, Republicans do it too...

ANYTHING with a panel of people involved is still subject to corruption and manipulation.
edit on 12-10-2017 by Edumakated because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

The CBO have produced some reports that go against Trump. That is the definition of non-partisan to some.



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I you sure the 'knee-jerk resistance' is not coming from you?
Hundreds of years of elections and because you don't like Trump getting elected you believe there is a fundamental issue that requires setting exam questions for politicians?
You already have 18 months of speeches, endless debates, interviews and ads for people to make up their minds. Do you think people did not know Trump had no experience in politics and had his flaws? They decided to put him in office anyway. It's called democracy.

Oh. I knew immediately that he was incompetent, but it would have been awesome if he were forced to prove that to the public before they voted on them with a test. All these speeches and debates are carefully prepared and prepped by aides and strategists. Heck, it's known that debate questions can be screened ahead of time so nothing too earth shattering is asked. A test lets them answer questions without ANY of that help. They have to use their own knowledge.

Also, the reason I'm saying you are knee jerk resisting change is because you haven't told anyone why it is a bad idea to do this. What's wrong with knowing a bit more about the candidate you are about to vote for? Do you honestly believe there is a saturation point where you can know everything possible about a candidate or something? Or are you just disagreeing with this because I suggested the idea (which is what I think is the real reason)?
edit on 12-10-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Why is Jonathan Gruber "my boy"?

I mean I understand that corruption can leak anywhere, but that doesn't mean we should at least ATTEMPT to maintain non-partisanism. Saying that anything is at risk of corruption as an excuse not to act is defeatist mentality.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join