PDA

View Full Version : Elective Office


JOEBIALEK
31 Aug 2005, 10:04 AM
One of the ambitious proposals put forth by former Vice-President Al Gore was the "re-invention" of government. While the Clinton Administration may have made some progress towards promoting greater efficiency, the result was that government actually grew in size mainly because of bureaucratic self-perpetuation. No one in the United States would disagree that the reduction of government waste should be given top priority. However, before tackling such a problem, one must examine the root causes and not merely treat the symptoms.

When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they deliberately left out the "structural path" of elective office but were very clear on names of offices, branches of government, duties of elected officials etcetera. However, what they failed to foresee was the need for elective offices to follow a required path. For example, take the leader of the executive branch; if a person wants to be elected president of the United States, they must first serve as mayor of a city, commissioner of a county and then governor of a state. The two-term limit (eight years) should also be extended to include these lower chief executives as well.

The legislative branch should have a similar path. If one wants to be elected United States senator, they must first serve as a U.S. congressperson from that state. Before serving as a congressperson, they must serve as a councilperson of a city, representative of a state and then as a state senator. The two-term limit should apply here as well.

As for the judicial branch, a United States supreme court justice must serve as a municipal court judge of a city, common pleas court judge of a county, circuit court or district court judge of a state, appeals court judge and state supreme court judge. The two-term limit would apply here also.

Furthermore, the education of these candidates to-be should entail the equivalent of earning a bachelors degree, masters degree and a doctorate in philosophy degree. These degrees must be earned prior to running for elective office. Besides providing a focused academic training it will promote a greater maturity in our candidates before they experience the rigors of their first elective office.

Few could doubt that this path would provide good practical training for those seeking higher office while at the same time establishing a track record that voters could more easily analyze and understand. The two-term limit would allow greater participation because the office would be wide open every eight years. This would force the elected official to properly execute his/her duties and not be as influenced by the various special interest groups.

Government today is often seen as part of the problem rather than a solution to the problem. Perhaps if the United States would consider a path of development for its "philosopher kings" public trust would return and something may actually get done.

Orville Wrong
31 Aug 2005, 01:17 PM
I don't think they failed to foresee it, I think they thought it need not be a requirement. Legislators occasionally become president (JFK, LBJ), as do military officers (Eisenhower, Grant, Jackson).

Arnold Schwarzenegger was mayor of nothing, yet seems to be a competent governor.

This looks to me like fixing something that's not broken.

CablinasianRam
31 Aug 2005, 03:26 PM
I personaly do not like this idea because it limits the amount of people available to serve our country based on their resume concerning public service. The people are decent enough judges on who is able to do a job, which is why Steve Forbes isn't president. I think the country hates politicians because they think of their career over the people which elect them. I'm also not wild about the idea that creates a class system based on who can rule. The 25/35/40 age idea is alright, but not one which says a padded resume is a good idea.

I also think crossover of the branches of government isn't a bad idea. Harry Truman was a member of the House and a Senator before becoming president. And honestly, any rule of thumb which says George W. Bush would be a more capable leader of the country than Harry Truman isn't worth it's weight in dung.

markalot
31 Aug 2005, 04:38 PM
So basicly what you are saying is that only career politicians can get elected?

Nope, no way, it goes against the very idea this government was founded on, though in reality it's almost always true.

JOEBIALEK
08 Sep 2005, 04:45 PM
good points

the_birds
08 Sep 2005, 07:43 PM
Just like its not good to have ALL people who have had their whole life in Politics to be in office, its probably not a good idea to have ALL people who have been in college for 8 years, either. Wanna work with someone who is an intelligent moron? Work with someone who has a lot of education that someone else paid for and never worked for real in their life. Look up that person in the Encyclopedia and there is a picture of Geo. W. Bush.

Americans have to take responsibilty for their country. Nobody is going to do it for them. Wake up or watch your country slowly die, America. And giving the fact that America is addicted to instant gratification, our future is about as bright as ancient Rome in about 350 A.D.

And by the way, its Elected Office, not Elective office.

drexel dave
08 Sep 2005, 08:24 PM
I would MUCH rather have blue-collar people elected to office who know what it means to feed a family on ever-diminishing returns. People who KNOW what it is like to live life on the streets with the rest of us schmoes.

Damn these professional politicians and the pointy-headed retards with multiple degrees who have no idea what it means to sweat, and stink for a paycheck.

The professional class in the United States is mostly filled with useless parasites who need to get a shovel and get to work - or starve. You can see this by all of the talking heads on television whose mouths work a lot better than their bodies.

The sooner we can restore respect and dignity to those who toil and sweat for the betterment of their children and community, the better.

markalot
08 Sep 2005, 09:03 PM
I would MUCH rather have blue-collar people elected to office who know what it means to feed a family on ever-diminishing returns. People who KNOW what it is like to live life on the streets with the rest of us schmoes.

Damn these professional politicians and the pointy-headed retards with multiple degrees who have no idea what it means to sweat, and stink for a paycheck.

The professional class in the United States is mostly filled with useless parasites who need to get a shovel and get to work - or starve. You can see this by all of the talking heads on television whose mouths work a lot better than their bodies.

The sooner we can restore respect and dignity to those who toil and sweat for the betterment of their children and community, the better.


Politicians are corrupt maggots, but to lump professionals into that group ... ?? I dress up and work in an office every day. I make programs used internally that help the rest of my company do their job better. They all dress nice too and all of them work hard. They are all _skilled_ professionals.

Why on earth are you against professionals? Why does someone have to know how to dig a hole in order to understand what it's like to feed a family?

drexel dave
08 Sep 2005, 09:16 PM
Because in the future, if you don't know what it's like to work hard and break a sweat, you'll be viewed as dead weight and we'll have no choice but to kill and eat you.

I've been on both sides of the fence. And while the professional class in America isn't COMPLETELY useless, America would completely fall apart without the working class. The working class gets things done, and we are helpless without them.

We'd just shift gears if our professional class were gone in a day.

drexel dave
08 Sep 2005, 09:17 PM
If you don't know how to use a shovel, you can't grow food.


Why on earth are you against professionals? Why does someone have to know how to dig a hole in order to understand what it's like to feed a family?

markalot
08 Sep 2005, 09:34 PM
Because in the future, if you don't know what it's like to work hard and break a sweat, you'll be viewed as dead weight and we'll have no choice but to kill and eat you.

Right, I forgot this was the end. :rolleyes:

drexel dave
08 Sep 2005, 09:39 PM
Doubt you'd be rolling your eyes had you lived through NOLA. It is the beginning of the end of the American Disneyland illusion though. Sorry to see you bought into it. :(

Right, I forgot this was the end. :rolleyes: