3 ms·

I would like to see stricter qualifications for candidates. For instance, you have to be elected to city council before you can run for state assembly. You have

I would like to see stricter qualifications for candidates. For instance, you have to be elected to city council before you can run for state assembly. You have to be elected to state assembly before you can run for governor. You have to be elected for governor before you can run for Congress. Something along those lines. That would prevent a random reality TV star from becoming President. Also term limits.

geezerjay 8y ago
> For instance, you have to be elected to city council before you can run for state assembly. You have to be elected to state assembly before you can run for governor. You have to be elected for governor before you can run for Congress. Wouldn't that favour cronyism and enforce a barrier to entry to those who don't fall in line with the dictats of the ruling elite? Furthermore, it also creates a caste of professional politicians.
- 8_hours_ago 8y ago
  People like to complain about professional politicians, but I haven't heard a good argument against them that outweighs their benefits. Wouldn't a professional politician be better than one who doesn't really know what's going on? Governing is hard. Getting results in our political system requires difficult compromises. Creating policy, understanding the consequences of policy, and evaluating differences between policies requires domain expertise. Wouldn't someone with more experience be better?
shakezula 8y ago
This would worse the situation I think. There would be an increased demand for people qualified to take positions, potentially allowing bad candidates to be the "only legal option" and exacerbating the problems we're trying to fix. The problem isn't that a "random reality TV star" is allowed to hold office like Governor or President, it's that a reality TV star can receive millions fewer popular votes and still win the election. It's the voting system that needs to be fixed first.
RIMR 8y ago
On the other hand, having nothing but career politicians running the country, and a high barrier to entry for your average citizen to get involved with politics isn't exactly going to work out long-term either. What we need is completely socialized education so that the population doesn't get so dumbed down that they vote the loudest, least professional people into office.
ben509 8y ago
Trump won because he appealed to a broad group of mostly Democrats who had been overlooked by the career politicians. Those people had been unrepresented and taken for granted, and a major factor of their motivation in voting for Trump was to signal their anger to DC. In the long run, it's beneficial to society that this group has gotten recognition and some of their issues are being addressed. Career politicians tend to have a support structure that identifies their preferred base and caters to them. Simple majority voting would mean that our politics would be dominated by major population areas. Neither of those things are so bad in the short run, but in the long run you would have significant groups who would never have their concerns and interests addressed. That our system makes it possible for a minority to win over the majority at times is a real strength.

geezerjay 8y ago

> For instance, you have to be elected to city council before you can run for state assembly. You have to be elected to state assembly before you can run for governor. You have to be elected for governor before you can run for Congress. Wouldn't that favour cronyism and enforce a barrier to entry to those who don't fall in line with the dictats of the ruling elite? Furthermore, it also creates a caste of professional politicians.

8_hours_ago 8y ago
People like to complain about professional politicians, but I haven't heard a good argument against them that outweighs their benefits. Wouldn't a professional politician be better than one who doesn't really know what's going on? Governing is hard. Getting results in our political system requires difficult compromises. Creating policy, understanding the consequences of policy, and evaluating differences between policies requires domain expertise. Wouldn't someone with more experience be better?

shakezula 8y ago

This would worse the situation I think. There would be an increased demand for people qualified to take positions, potentially allowing bad candidates to be the "only legal option" and exacerbating the problems we're trying to fix. The problem isn't that a "random reality TV star" is allowed to hold office like Governor or President, it's that a reality TV star can receive millions fewer popular votes and still win the election. It's the voting system that needs to be fixed first.

RIMR 8y ago

On the other hand, having nothing but career politicians running the country, and a high barrier to entry for your average citizen to get involved with politics isn't exactly going to work out long-term either. What we need is completely socialized education so that the population doesn't get so dumbed down that they vote the loudest, least professional people into office.

ben509 8y ago

Trump won because he appealed to a broad group of mostly Democrats who had been overlooked by the career politicians. Those people had been unrepresented and taken for granted, and a major factor of their motivation in voting for Trump was to signal their anger to DC. In the long run, it's beneficial to society that this group has gotten recognition and some of their issues are being addressed. Career politicians tend to have a support structure that identifies their preferred base and caters to them. Simple majority voting would mean that our politics would be dominated by major population areas. Neither of those things are so bad in the short run, but in the long run you would have significant groups who would never have their concerns and interests addressed. That our system makes it possible for a minority to win over the majority at times is a real strength.