Gov. Beverly Perdue (D-NC): We should cancel the elections

Werbung:
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. ;)
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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!)
 
Why would you be against it? Surely a "career" juror couldn't be corrupted any more than say, a "career" politician could be corrupted.... :rolleyes:

No, people will always be "corrupted." The point is that there is a system in place to remove corruption if need be. That exists in the jury system, same as it exists in the political system. If people don't take advantage of that removal system, it is hardly the fault of the system, but rather the fault of the people.

Personally, I think if you want a better crop of politicians, we need to pay them more money.
 
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'm sure there could be a compromise between the meager stipend a juror gets and the 6 digit salary the average congressman pulls down.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.

Well, I think it would be nice to have a "blank party" ballot.

It might encourage people to vote ACROSS the aisle, instead of just straight down their "favorite" party.
 
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! :D

"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..."
 
Werbung:
Back
Top