We need a better way to vet candiates running for office and I have an idea

originally posted by: sedna9
iam fromgermany. i have a advise. why not develop some new votingsystem/device where a drugtest is connected to the voteing. so that you have to be sober to give away your vote and so on

Drug tests are too expensive to do on a mass scale when they only produce minimal results and can be faked stupidly easily. This is why drug testing welfare recipients has been proven to be a waste of tax money time and again.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Edumakated
All taxes aren't the same. If you aren't contributing or paying federal taxes, then I think your opinion isn't as valid as someone who has skin in the game. It is easy to vote to increase taxes, no matter how benevolent you may think whatever policy is you want implemented when you aren't the one paying the taxes.

That's fine you think that way. I know I'm not going to change that thinking so I'm not going to try. The Constitution disagrees though so your idea is moot and worthless to the discussion. It only serves as a point of what NOT to do.

People generally don't stay poor. There was a time when I was "poor". You work hard and get yourself in a position to where you can vote. If anything, it may make people take voting more seriously since it is an earned right. Not all "poor" people are on the public dole.

Doesn't matter. Your idea is still unconstitutional. Address that point first.

You cannot have half the population who does not pay taxes voting to dig into the pockets of the other half. It will eventually fail. We see this in practice now. We all know that leftist politicians love to tell the non-paying half that the paying half isn't paying their fair share for votes.

Sure you can. That's how our Constitution is setup. At least my idea in the OP is Constitutional.

PS: Also, thanks for making this into another petty left/right argument. ATS DEFINITELY needed more of those... /sarc

At no point did I state my ideas or opinions were constitutionally sound. Neither are yours. The constitutionality isn't the point, it was what changes could be made. You never qualified your OP or any subsequent statements that any idea needed to be "constitutional".

a reply to: Edumakated

Of course any idea has to be Constitutional. I want my idea implemented and I thought long and hard about the best way to achieve that while still adhering to the Constitution. What's the point of suggesting ideas that violate the Constitution?

ETA: Also, I definitely talked about Constitutionality in the OP:

Now a solution people like to pitch is that we implement a civics test for voters, but this violates the Constitution. I cannot agree to such a thing. The smartest person in the country and the dumbest person in the country are entitled to the same vote. By that same reasoning, we should also relax taking voting rights away from felons, but that is a discussion for another thread.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I love it . How do we make it happen

a reply to: Edumakated

Ideas in OP are perfectly "Constitutionally sound" either by amending the national Constitution, state Constitutions or even by State law.

Denying Americans the due process of law and equal protection under the laws, as you're suggesting (unsurprisingly) is not.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: sedna9
iam fromgermany. i have a advise. why not develop some new votingsystem/device where a drugtest is connected to the voteing. so that you have to be sober to give away your vote and so on

Drug tests are too expensive to do on a mass scale when they only produce minimal results and can be faked stupidly easily. This is why drug testing welfare recipients has been proven to be a waste of tax money time and again.

cdn.pastemagazine.com...

originally posted by: Edumakated
If anything, it may make people take voting more seriously since it is an earned right.

Ummm...if you have to earn it, it's not a right.

At least Trump has a legal birth certificate he can produce unlike his predessor. a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So, what we need is a solution that doesn't punish the voters. So how about instead we punish the candidates? If we create a non-partisan office that implements a civics test for any candidate running federal office (this would be too hard to implement at lower governmental levels) then have the results of the test given to the voters before they vote so they can digest each candidate's knowledge base without the help of aides or prepared remarks. The non-partisan office would make the test unique each year and scramble the questions for each test given to each candidate to minimize cheating, and the questions could range from easy "name all 50 states and their capitals" to hard "Describe the difference between discretionary and mandatory spending". You could also have some questions to get an idea on how a candidate feels on issues like asking, "Define what compromise means to you and name a historic compromise that motivates you in today's politics".

I like the notion of what you propose. It is important that our elected leadership demonstrate at least a fundamental understanding of how government works.

But I like the way Tradesman licensing works. You take a test to demonstrate a certain level of knowledge based on what trade you are plying. Usually there are Master and Journeyman level tradesmen certifications; and one of the distinguishing qualification between them is experience. Once you are certified, the license is accepted perpetually as long as it's renewed on time. But there is typically some amount of continuing education required for renewal.

But the exact results of the test are not made public. As long as the applicant has a passing score, they are awarded the certification.

So, I would propose a non-governmental organization (NGO) of some sort that administers the test and awards the certification based on a standardized test. All of the questions on the test would be made public, so there could be some debate about wording, topics, etc. The NGO would be established by law, so that it has the power of a government agency, without as much of the bureaucracy of a government office.

Beyond the certification, the politicians would get credit for the amount of openness they pursue with release of tax returns, college transcripts, and other information that might help the voters make an informed decision. But those disclosures wouldn't be required.

Having a politician commit to certain beliefs "on the record" as part of the certification process might impair their ability to actually do their job. When they run for office, they generally publish some kind of platform to run on. So that information is available from other sources. And given that this is politics, politicians have to have multiple faces in order to negotiate with other politicians, and represent policies that they might not agree with.

So, a Master-5 might be an experienced politician with a demonstrated advanced knowledge of civics, and a completely visible record, possibly with a granularity of briefs or boxers.

While a government novice with a lot to hide might be a Journeyman-0. This shows a basic knowledge of government with a disregard for transparency.

There could be add-ons, sometimes called stamps in Trade licensing. So perhaps there are stamps for proven successful business experience, demonstrated advanced knowledge in certain political topics, a clean funding record (limited special interests), or demonstrated ability in firearms control (loading and shooting, not legislation.)

In essence, I suppose I am advocating for Politician licensing. But it needs to be easy enough for the novice politician to gain standing based on his past experience, applicable abilities, and knowledge.

And the only way that any seated politician will even consider this proposal would require they be grandfathered in. That's probably okay, as any change of this nature will take some time to phase in.

So, those are a few modifications and additions to your proposal. Perhaps a selling point for this licensing would be that having a variety of certifications could be used by candidates as part of their marketing campaign. If one candidate is a Master-0 and the other is a Journeyman-5, this gives the voter another parameter on which to judge the candidate; namely that one is more experienced, but the other is much more transparent about his or her history and activities.

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

That sounds like it could be a good idea too. I really like the parallel to trade craftsmen. I was never in the trades so I didn't have that knowledge base to pull from. Well thought out. Kudos.


The only hold up I have is the private answers part. The reason I advocate for publishing their answers is because we need to inject some sort of honesty into the game. It's too easy for a politician to obscure or obfuscate their true intentions by dancing around an issue. If we can see how they answer questions without assistance it can help us get an idea into the workings of how they think. While I DO care immensely about their civics knowledge, their critical thinking and thought process are equally important to the equation as well.

Politicians can and will promise you the world for your vote, but you will never get to see if they are sincere about their promises or not until they are actually elected. I feel like if we could see how they answered questions we can get an insight into how they'd approach problems once elected and even if they truly know what they are talking about and not just winging it for a vote. I mean ultimately we, the public, are all these peoples' boss. Shouldn't the boss be able to review their answers? That's what I think at least.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Poor idea because it would actually exclude more people from the process.
Rich establishment types have the time and resources to study for civics exams.

I am sure Hillary Clinton, probably the most unqualified person ever to run for public office, would pass a civics exam. Being able to swat up and lie about your intentions doesn't make one qualified. Vision and integrity are more important - after all elected officials have teams to handle detail and advise them.

The problem with the system is not about civics understanding - it is about a corrupt elite monopolising federal, state and local offices.

Perhaps ask yourself a question - why do you want to change a system that has worked in the USA, at least at a macro level, just because you don't like the outcome? Embrace democracy instead of trying to fit things to suit your own ideals.

Well said.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Trump was elected because he was able to sell a con to the public. I want to minimize the risk of that happening in the future. Though, since you are still a Trump lover and cannot realistically look at how Trump is negatively effecting my country pretend we are talking about Obama.

This here lefty, this here invalidates your whole thread.
This is reactionary and more complaining because your candidate didn't win.

Your prosposals are a result of being a sore loser. Everything you say is exactly opposite my thinking.

So, NOPE.