Should politicians stay?

jesse · Post by **jesse** » Fri Mar 02, 2007 3:20 am

Should politicians only be allowed to serve in the office for a limited period of time?
Should they remain with the experienced people or should there be a change of a new generation?
Is change good?

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:12 am

micatala wrote:This would make things much worse. No pay from the government means they'll be selling themselves to influence peddlers.

You mean they're not right now? The current political system is inherently corrupting.

Having pay based on approval ratings will mean pandering to people's selfish interests and a congress that would be even more spineless than it is now.

It means that the politicians would be doing what their constitutents want, and isn't that why they were elected to begin with?

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:17 am

McCulloch wrote:But if they really do not understand their constituents, then why would they keep voting them in? If you answer that voters are stupid, then you undermine the whole idea of democracy and maybe we would be better off with a benign dictatorship if the really smart!

The reality is that people are stupid. The electorate is woefully uninformed, the majority vote based on how someone looks on TV. They don't have a clue what someone's platform is outside of a few soundbites. It's honestly like religion, most people don't even know what their political party stands for, they're just a Democrat or Republican because their parents were Democrats or Republicans.

We wouldn't be better off with a dictatorship, we'd be better off with smarter, better-informed people.

Vladd44 · Post by **Vladd44** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:36 pm

Lottery Rotation, I say it again.

Random Selection, no excuses, and no exceptions made.

You Live here, your over 18, your number comes up, your IT!!!!!

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:10 am

Vladd44 wrote:You Live here, your over 18, your number comes up, your IT!!!!!

So you get a lot of people who are angry and don't care and start voting to launch nukes at people and other similarly stupid things. Sure, that's a great plan.

Vladd44 · Post by **Vladd44** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:26 am

Cephus wrote:So you get a lot of people who are angry and don't care and start voting to launch nukes at people and other similarly stupid things. Sure, that's a great plan.

So your saying that you would start launching nukes? Or is this just the same old tired routine about everyone else being incompetent?

I think average people are more than able to act with the needed levels of self preservation.

I have a great idea, how about we have egotistical rich white people run the world? Oh wait, we already have that for the most part, Great Plan!!!!!

There is nothing in what I said about negation of responsibility, only the removal of elections to fill our fools of choice rotation.

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:07 pm

Vladd44 wrote:So your saying that you would start launching nukes? Or is this just the same old tired routine about everyone else being incompetent?

No, but take some 19-year old suicidal drug addict and force them into office, who knows what they might do. That's the problem with the lottery idea, you're going to end up with unskilled, uneducated people who don't want to be there and don't have a clue what they're doing. The damage to the country would be catastrophic.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:13 pm

Cephus wrote:
micatala wrote:This would make things much worse. No pay from the government means they'll be selling themselves to influence peddlers.
You mean they're not right now? The current political system is inherently corrupting.

I did not say the current system is not bad, or that there are not problems. I am just saying I think the idea of 'entrepreneurial politicians' if that is a fair characterization would be worse.

Cephus wrote:
Having pay based on approval ratings will mean pandering to people's selfish interests and a congress that would be even more spineless than it is now.
It means that the politicians would be doing what their constitutents want, and isn't that why they were elected to begin with?

Having politicians that allow themselves to be micro-managed by the electorate via polls and other mechanisms is not necessarily good, especially if we do not address the point you make here:

We wouldn't be better off with a dictatorship, we'd be better off with smarter, better-informed people.

I agree. We need a better-informed electorate. Until this happens, it is incumbent on the leaders not to allow themselves to be manipulated, coerced, etc. by the most ill-informed segments of the population. Unfortunately, some politicians actually manipulate segments of the ill-informed electorate for their own ends.

My suggestion, however ill thought-out and infeasible it may be, was meant to address the root causes of the ill effects of the current system. Namely, that money and power drive politics. If we cannot or will not address this root issue, we are not likely to see improvement, in my view.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:17 pm

Vladd44 wrote:Lottery Rotation, I say it again.

Random Selection, no excuses, and no exceptions made.

You Live here, your over 18, your number comes up, your IT!!!!!

How about a combination of our plans.

One body selected totally at random.

One body where the candidates are selected at random, but then those that serve are chosen via an election.

I still need to think about how to select the President. Having the President be the only 'professional politician' would have the tendency to enhance his or her power and influence. This is what happens in my state, where the governor serves full-time, but the legislators are 'citizen legislators' that mostly hold other jobs and only meet for 40 legislative days per year.

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:52 am

micatala wrote:I did not say the current system is not bad, or that there are not problems. I am just saying I think the idea of 'entrepreneurial politicians' if that is a fair characterization would be worse.

I really don't think it could be much worse. We really need to get back to the idea that politics is a public service, not a get-rich-quick scheme. People take political office to serve the public good, not to line their own pockets. As it stands right now, anyone who actually wants to get into office probably has no business whatsoever being there.

My suggestion, however ill thought-out and infeasible it may be, was meant to address the root causes of the ill effects of the current system. Namely, that money and power drive politics. If we cannot or will not address this root issue, we are not likely to see improvement, in my view.

Then we need to take money and power out of the equation, but the only ways we can do that is to limit how much money and power the politicians have access to and to force the public to actually care about what happens politically. Neither of them are likely to happen any time soon.

Confused · Post by **Confused** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:59 pm

Personally, I think that when politicians are running for office, they should have to do the following:
1) take a polygraph-and pass
2) not be allowed to accept contributions from lobbyists and special interest groups
3) take another polygraph-and pass
4) Have a very specific list about what they will change and exactly how they are going to change it.
5) Take another polygraph-and pass
6) Actually be a resident of the state for more than 2 years (that throws Hilary out the door, though NY deserves her)
7) Take another polygraph-and pass
8) Be profiled by a shrink to determine how many illnesses from the DSMIV they have, and have that information published.
9) Take another polygraph-and pass.