GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Fine, we pick the candidates at random, as I've suggested, and only those people are allowed to run for the office. Acceptable?We already have a screening process in place...they are called elections.
Fine, we pick the candidates at random, as I've suggested, and only those people are allowed to run for the office. Acceptable?We already have a screening process in place...they are called elections.
Fine, we pick the candidates at random, as I've suggested, and only those people are allowed to run for the office. Acceptable?
No..anyone is already allowed to run for office, and we have a process to narrow it down...called the primary.
Just out of curiosity... would you be for or against professional "career" jurors?
Nope, no pensions. Maybe, no salaries either, just a reimbursement of expenses. We need people who have been successful in the private sector and don't need pensions and such.
Why would you be against it? Surely a "career" juror couldn't be corrupted any more than say, a "career" politician could be corrupted....Against it.
Jurors are paid a stipend for their time and they're not allowed to be fired for missing work as a result of performing their civic duties. I think it's a fine model for public office.No pensions. . .totally agree. However, I would give them salaries. . .or we would ONLY get wealthy people who can afford to take two to four years without income from work, OR people willing to be bought by lobbyists and big corp.
No, I don't think "ability to pay your own way for the time you are in office" should be a criteria for election. . .and it would be if there was no compensation for holding that office.
Jurors are paid a stipend for their time and they're not allowed to be fired for missing work as a result of performing their civic duties. I think it's a fine model for public office.
Why would you be against it? Surely a "career" juror couldn't be corrupted any more than say, a "career" politician could be corrupted....
I'm sure there could be a compromise between the meager stipend a juror gets and the 6 digit salary the average congressman pulls down.I wish I could agree. . .but the inadequacy of those stipends are one of the reason so many citizens will do almost ANYTHING to avoid jury duty. . . If anything, they should be paid the same rate as what they are earning in their regular job (with limits, obviously. . .A CEO making $3,000 a day wouldn't be pay at that rate!)
I'd rather we just eliminate party affiliation from voter ballots... That way people can't just for R's and D's, you'd actually have to learn something about the candidate in order to know who to vote for... and since many Americans are too lazy to do that, we'd certainly have more interesting elections!Personally, I think if you want a better crop of politicians, we need to pay them more money.
I'd rather we just eliminate party affiliation from voter ballots... That way people can't just for R's and D's, you'd actually have to learn something about the candidate in order to know who to vote for... and since many Americans are too lazy to do that, we'd certainly have more interesting elections!
Not really...for example the Mayor's race of Houston is "non-partisan" (ie party affiliation is not listed on the ballot) however campaigns still basically run with one party or the other, and Houston (being a D city) has not elected an R mayor in a very very long time (if ever).
People might be stupid, but they can figure out what party a "non affiliated" person is really with and vote that way, and still manage to ignore all the issues.
I think you're onto something there... Let's not even have names!Well, I think it would be nice to have a "blank party" ballot.
I think you're onto something there... Let's not even have names!
"In tonight's news, candidate number 4 has won the election, that candidates name will be released as soon as we find out who that is..."