|
TreasureKY -> RE: United States Debt... or the Elephant in the Room (10/11/2013 4:13:39 PM)
|
So... it seems to me that a great deal of the problem revolves around our elected representatives and our two party system. I don't know about any of you, but I don't feel my interests have been represented in quite some time (if ever). Elections always seem to boil down to picking the lesser of two evils... and even then, once arriving in Washington it becomes a good ol' boy party where greasing palms and amassing personal fortunes is the name of the game.
The question would be how to fix the situation.
I absolutely loathe the fact that only individuals with large sums of money or the connections to raise large sums of money are able to run for National office.
I hate the fact that winning depends on how much money is spent.
While I admit that serving in a National office well requires time to learn the system, I cannot stand that there is such a thing as a "career politician". The system needs to be simplified.
I'm disgusted with the situation regarding lobbying and favors... and that politicians peddle their service-connected experience and connections into high-paying positions as lobbyists or pundits.
If it were up to me (be thankful it's not [;)] ), I'd like to see candidates serve anonymously.
I'm not quite sure of what the details would be... I'd like to see candidates chosen in some manner like a jury... so many from each county maybe. After summoning, there would be a process where people could request dismissal from consideration (health, family obligations, extreme business needs, etc.)... most likely a much more liberal process than for juries... then candidates would have to be screened for suitability (background and criminal checks, able to read and write, no physical or mental issues that would preclude serving, etc.). Think jury duty and the draft. Hopefully there would actually be a suitable number of candidates after this process.
Candidates might be required to attend some government and other types of seminars where they can learn and consider their positions on different issues (compiled from the top 15 or so questions submitted by the public). After completion, they would be required to complete a questionnaire explaining their views on those positions.
Candidates failing to complete the questionnaire or purposefully attempting to be eliminated from consideration by answering the questions in a less than thoughtful and serious manner, would be removed from the current candidate pool and sentenced to six months community service and automatic placement in the next following election. (You can't get out of serving your Country by being a jerk.)
Once all questionnaires are received, a sufficient pool of candidates would be selected by some random method... however many would be needed to present a statistically diverse selection. The finalists would be given a generic title to be known by... perhaps something like Candidate One, Candidate Two, etc. This title would be the only identification released to the public, along with the completed questionnaires. All newspapers would be required to print these in a special section that can be saved and distributed freely. Candidates would participate in one or two debates where their identities would be carefully disguised... think "The Dating Game" where voices are disguised, as well.
The point would be to mask and eliminate voting for someone based on anything other than their stated views. No voting for friends, what they look like, the sound of their name, their ethnicity, their gender, what car they drive, etc. No voting for a party.
The whole process can be shortened over what it is now because there will be no need for campaigning. The costs would be covered entirely by public funding so no need for fund raising. As the time for deliberation and exposure is controlled, the costs should be minimal. No need for the RNC or DNC with regard to actual candidates.
I'd also make it a requirement that potential voters be able to answer questions about the candidates stated views before they were allowed to cast their ballot. Nothing too onerous, but at least be able to demonstrate that they are familiar with what each candidates believes according to their released questionnaire. Nothing that would discriminate against any class of voter... the "test" could be administered in writing or verbal, and in any language one requests.
The winner of the election would still remain anonymous from the public and serve that way... known only as, for example, Representative Kentucky 1st CD (Congressional District). Communications can be done via email or letter. There would be no need to have rallies or meetings with special groups. The elected official would be required to remain anonymous. No appearing on talk shows, no parlaying their public position into celebrity. Interviews would be required to be submitted in writing and responded to in the same manner.
I realize that operating in this way would likely create a slew of underground organizations trying to identify the officials, but with sufficient criminal penalties for "outing" an official, it might be deterred.
This is, of course, all tongue-in-cheek. I'm sure there are dozens of holes and the logic might not work out at all. But really... what we have is a mess right now.
Edited to add:
I forgot to say... with regard to compensation, I'd like to see officials paid at a rate that equals the National average. To cover costs of having to maintain their home residence, add to their salary an amount equal to their previous years income as shown on their 1040. At the end of their service, they would be allowed to submit a claim for any actual material damages they might have suffered due to their service, but it would have to be strictly documented. No retirement pay, no lifetime perks.
Finally, service would be limited to one term.
|
|
|
|
