Topic started on 13-1-2012 @ 01:20 PM by Angelaisaac
I saw this posted somewhere and thought it was worth sharing here, since I didn't see it on here yet.
When a manager is seeking to fill an open position in their organization, they typically follow a series of steps to select the best candidate.
Usually the process begins by announcing the opening and informing candidates how to submit an application and/or resume. Once the applications have
been accepted, the manager would usually sort through the applications and select the most outstanding applications.
With a select group of applicants, the manager might arrange for phone screenings and/or in-person interviews. This helps gauge character and also
give the opportunity to ask more direct questions to see how the candidate responds in a time-critical situation. The most effective interviews are
administered by those who are experts in the field that the applicants are applying for. For instance, if there is an opening for an accountant, the
most effective interviewers would be practicing accountants. Here one could ask specific and direct questions pertaining to accounting and their
expertise in the matter. Someone with little to no accounting experience would hold poor interviews. Poor interviews would lead to poor hiring of
employees. Poor hiring of employees would lead to poor performance of the organization. Everyone suffers.
The same analogy holds true throughout other aspects of life and is no different when electing officials of government. However, there are large
differences between hiring an employee and hiring a president. In the case of an employee, it's usually a small group of people, if not just one,
holding interviews and making the hiring decisions. In the case of hiring elected officials, we democratically elect our officials. Therefore, the
most effective officials will be those hired by the most educated voters. What constitutes an educated voter? The situation is no different than the
previous example with the accountant -- someone who has held the same position previously or currently. That experience would lend them expertise,
and thus make them more capable of vetting their successor(s).
Unfortunately, a vast majority of voters aren't in this position. They hold jobs that are unrelated to public service , have families that keep them
busy, and have no knowledge or first-hand experience of what the job duties entail. Thus they are incapable of selecting the best candidate for the
position. Usually these voters based their choices on marketing that they are exposed to in their daily life, whether it be coverage in local or
national media, billboards, public speaking engagements, opinions of friends, polls, etc.. By this standard, it is usually those campaigns with the
most money that wins.
This in itself would be disastrous if the elected official was unstrained in power. It would allow a simple mechanism for dictators to rise to power
by gathering consensus amongst the ignorant voters. This is why democracy has been referred to as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for
In a democratic republic, powers of elected officials are restrained which limits the damage done by their elections. In the US, the Constitution is
our governing legal document and specifically outlines what powers the people have granted the government. However, it must be understood that a
document cannot enforce itself, it is up to the people to enforce it by electing officials that in turn uphold it. This unfortunately can cause
problems when voters are not educated on the documents that protect their rights. Without knowledge of the Constitution, an uninformed voter may
actually be persuaded to vote against their best interests. This is the political atmosphere that we find ourselves in during the present day. The
average voter is ignorant to their country's government and what their role is in maintaining a free society. We have shifted to a position where we
elect leaders based on character and what our own personal version of an ideal world is. The problem is that no ideals are ever in perfect alignment
between people. If two people are health nuts, one may eat meat, and the other may find it morally repugnant, yet topically they share a perceived
ideal of health. This is why our Constitution declares that all men are created equal and have God-given rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of
This may seem cut and dry -- everyone has a right to their life and liberty, but what about murderers? Do murderers have a right to life and liberty?
What about murder in self-defense? When you start digging down to the issues, you can see how the picture can become muddied. This is why we have
legislators to create laws that uphold the spirit of the Constitution. On the same token, poorly selected lawmakers will create poorly designed laws
which will lead to a poorly functioning country. What is to prevent lawmakers from creating laws that work in their best interests and those who
financially support them? An educated and informed voter.
Therefore, our country can only operate as a free society if the voters themselves are educated as to their responsibilities in a free society.
Unfortunately, there is a strong tendency to defer these important matters to others, such as media or advertising, when evaluating candidates.
Exacerbating the problem is the fact that most people have not read or do not understand the legal document that governs them and what their
responsibility is in upholding it. It seems as though a majority believe that they do not have a role to play. The unfortunate thing about belief is
that it is truth once a majority has accepted it. In this respect it is possible to pass laws that are in direct opposition to the aims of our
Constitution. It is possible to allow elected officials to defy the Constitution based on their interpretation of it. If the voters do not educate
themselves, and play their role in a free society, these scoundrels can and do get away with murder.