A candidate vetting committee

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by Greenleft, Oct 25, 2019.

  1. Greenleft

    Greenleft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,482
    Likes Received:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    This thread is talking to the Americans, but people of other countries can also contribute their thoughts on my idea.

    There are some people in this forum who don't have a lot of affection for democracy (disclaimer: when I say democracy, I mean the right to cast a vote NOT the system of government, the Americans call in it a Republic). They support the electoral college for the reason that they don't want the government to be run by (and I'm paraphrasing here) "the ignorant liberal west coast masses" meaning they have a major distrust in the good will and ability of large swaths of the nation's population. They certainly don't want compulsory voting. They want people to go through an intelligence test to be given the right to vote. They also don't like the idea of 16-17 year old people being allowed to vote. Some have even suggested that there should be no direct elections for Senators. One person said that there should not be universal suffrage. Another said democracy is the WORST form of government and so democracy should be minimized whenever possible.

    So I have told you all of that because it is those people I am talking to. If you don't agree with anything of the above, you will not like what I'm going to suggest.

    In Iran there is within the government a committee that decides who is qualified to be election candidates and who is disqualified. Their criteria is that the individual will uphold Islamic law among other things. They are called the Guardian Council.

    I think the United States should have such a group. People of all political persuasions were extremely unhappy with the choices given for the 2016 election. This vetting committee will scrutinize if a person has a criminal record, holds unconstitutional views, is under investigation for suspected wrongdoings, their mental and physical capability etc. If the Supreme Court has life appointments, the ability to strike down or uphold laws and even re-interpret existing laws, I don't see how this power is any more justified than the power of a group of people to decide who gets to be candidates.

    Rather than disqualify voters, why not disqualify candidates? You should not alienate voters from the political process. It's much better to just take away bad options. Again, if you are a pure democrat (being pro-democracy not the political party), you won't like this idea. But for anyone who thinks there should be limits to democracy, they should at least consider this option.
     
    btthegreat likes this.
  2. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well first you don't know American history or our government or our country. Second we Americans can get along just fine without you thoughts based on that lack of knowledge about our country and our government.

    Lesson one, the founding fathers in the Constitution guarantied we would NOT be a democracy.
     
  3. Greenleft

    Greenleft Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,482
    Likes Received:
    417
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You did not add anything to the conversation and just accused me with ignorance not knowing how much personal research I've done.Putting you on ignore.
     
    Meta777, btthegreat and cd8ed like this.
  4. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,839
    Likes Received:
    32,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We Americans can obviously not get along just fine — trump is threatening civil war. That’s about the opposite of “getting along”.

    To the OP: I don’t really believe we need such a committee, what we need is a viable third party and to promote all Americans voting. The Republican strategy seems to be disenfranchisement of those that will not vote for them and the democrat strategy seems to be vote for this person regardless of who you actually want.

    Our system was set up so that states are represented by the Senate (two for each state), the House is represented by the people within each state but was pretty much messed up with The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 which again gave smaller states more power, and a president that was supposed to be elected through a combination of those numbers via white male landowners.

    It was designed to be ****ed up.

    If we eliminated the EC or based it on the NPV, ended gerrymandering, restored proportional representation in the House, and stoped electing representatives through a FPTP process our system would actually work quite well.
     
    Greenleft and Meta777 like this.
  5. Spim

    Spim Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,664
    Likes Received:
    6,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see no need for any pre-qualification committee primarily because I would likely distrust the committee's recommendations since they would likely only qualify their "preferred" candidates.

    I do agree that I hated both candidates in 2016, and it looks likely that I will not be a fan of either candidate in 2020.

    So basically I agree with cd8ed on the following:

    past that the other not-quoted comments are just a bunch of standard partisan hackmanship so i'll ignore those.

    I've voted for 3 different parties in the past, and I wholeheartedly support the formulation of an Independent party, they would instantly be one of the largest voting blocks based on registration numbers. My primary reason is that I can't stand dem/gop partisan b.s. and as far as I'm concerned both parties can go to hell, since that seems unlikely a 3rd party would at least force them to co-exist and drop the partisan crap.

    As far as "all americans voting" meh, if you don't want to vote, don't, i'm ok with that. But i'm sure posters like cd8ed would not like my preferred system of requiring proof of citizenship and photo ID (some know this as voter suppression), which is common sense, those that call it suppression or racist are just responding like children parroting the dem message and i'm used to that so no big deal.

    Hell I just had to show my ID at the local library to reinstate my lapsed library card (due to lack of use) so basically, based on the democrat's messaging, my local library purges their members and is racist. Who knew? <anyway, enough about that.

    Back the the OP, one comment I'll make is that I can't possibly imagine that Iran can teach us anything about how our democracy/republic works so whatever Iran does, I'm not interested in copying.
    No to the committee of insiders making decisions for us in advance, a HUGE NO
    No to anything Iran does.
    YES to electoral college

    so.. what SHOULD have happened in 2016 is that a viable 3rd party candidate should have risen up from the depths.
    what SHOULD happen in 2020 is the same.
    screw both major parties, they suck.

    I voted for a pot smoking idiot in 2016 and he was far and away a better candidate than Hillary/Donald, and i'll gladly do it again based on what i'm seeing so far.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
    Blaster3 likes this.
  6. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's the left making such threats.

    Trump has disfranchised no one and if someone doesn't already have the care and concern and gumption to go vote then I don't want them to be voting.

    The 17th Amendment change who the Senators represent but I am all for a repeal of it.

    It was designed to work a beautifully as it has, now that the Democrats lose elections they want to change it.

    We're not going to eliminate the EC.
     
  7. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,839
    Likes Received:
    32,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How is citing the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 which shifted power from the people to the states “partisan hackmanship”?

    And why would I be against only allowing citizens to vote? If you are “sure” about that then your opinion is worth very little as you are wrong by all measures of the word.
     
  8. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,839
    Likes Received:
    32,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Both sides are making such threats including the president — which further reinforces my statement.

    strawman

    Republicans were for a repeal of the EC until they saw it was the only way they could win an election — then they were suddenly for it.

    I never said we would. Another strawman. Do you ever get tired of basing your entire argument on fallacies?

    Also, with the NPVIC we won’t have to get rid of it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
  9. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't see an Antifa on the right or a civil war movement point me to it.

    My opinion, why would you want to urge uninformed votes who do not on their own have the care and concern to go vote to vote at all?

    Cite a Republican proposal to get rid of the EC and Trump alone does not speak for the Republican party.

    Not a strawman a fact and the NPVIC is not going to get passed by enough states to make it work and the first time Californians seeing their votes going for another Trump they will renig on it, there is no enforement mechanism and the Congress must approve all compacts between the states.

    You continue to :wall: because you are still mad Trump beat Clinton.
     
  10. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,839
    Likes Received:
    32,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The right doesn’t need antifa. Y’all have the proud boys and trump.

    Civic duty. I would urge them to get educated on the issues first, ignore the letters beside the candidates and then vote however.

    I never said anything about a proposal, another strawman.
    upload_2019-10-29_16-13-53.png


    When is the last time a Republican won the popular vote? It goes even further back if you limit it to the first term.
    They cannot pass such legislation as a compact but they can do so individually.

    I didn’t vote for Clinton so I have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
  11. Spim

    Spim Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,664
    Likes Received:
    6,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the disenfranchised bs, the civil war bs, we disagree, totally, but that's ok, I'm not surprised, I've read your posts before.
     
  12. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,839
    Likes Received:
    32,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you are saying trump did not threaten civil war?
    Or his supporters?

    You still didn’t answer the question, what did I say that was false?
    And why would I be against only allowing citizens to vote? Post a single instance of me ever even slightly indicating support for non-citizens being allowed to vote. Since you have read my posts you should surely be able to back up your lies. Right?
     
  13. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First we don’t have a Democracy.
     
  14. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,618
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think we'd have to be very careful with a proposal like that.
    We'd have to somehow ensure that those in power couldn't just
    define crimes, wrongdoing, or mental-physical standards such as to
    simply disqualify all their potentially viable rivals ala the way things currently operate over in Russia...

    And basing criteria around simple suspicion or an investigation is especially perilous.
    Also, I don't think physical standards should come into the equation at all, as long as they're alive and kicking. Same for their views, they shouldn't matter (candidacy-wise) so long as all their actions remain within the bounds of the constitution and they aren't doing/saying anything illegal.

    I do understand the merits of having a little bit of pre-vetting, but in the end I think it'll probably be more trouble than its worth. In theory, it could work... but mess up the implementation, even just a little, and we could end up with entrenched political entities even more entrenched than the ones we have today, which are already pretty entrenched to begin with. Or, in other words, it could result in the will of the voters being perpetually overturned by an establishment which changes the rules, not to provide more voice to the people, but simply to keep itself in power.

    Removing our FPTP Plurality Voting system and replacing it with a Ranked Voting system would fix all of that up in a jiffy.

    -Meta
     
    Greenleft and cd8ed like this.
  15. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,618
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, you actually beat me to mentioning that (that doesn't usually happen)
    Your post gives me hope :)

    -Meta
     
    cd8ed likes this.
  16. Spim

    Spim Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,664
    Likes Received:
    6,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    chill dude.

    all I did was edit out the never trumper crap and respond to the rest. lighten up francis.
     
  17. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,839
    Likes Received:
    32,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Facts cannot be anti-trump, they just are.
     
  18. Spim

    Spim Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,664
    Likes Received:
    6,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I like winner take all, I like the ec
    I dont expect either to change in my lifetime
     
    Bluesguy likes this.
  19. Spim

    Spim Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,664
    Likes Received:
    6,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    okie dokie. go get em tiger.
     
  20. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,839
    Likes Received:
    32,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    FPTF pretty much directly causes a duopoly.
    As long as it stands we will not have a viable third party in this Nation.
     
  21. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,706
    Likes Received:
    21,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think you're looking at the EC in the wrong way. It was created because some states refused to join the Union without it, and its important now because many states would end up leaving the Union if we got rid of it.

    Any discussion about abolishing the EC is a discussion about dissolving (at least substantially reducing) the Union and breaking up the nation.

    There is an argument to be had there... we are politically divided as a nation, and we very likely could make everyones lives better and our various preferences of forms of democracy more effective by splitting up.

    But simply getting rid of the EC isn't an option unless dissolving the Union (or militarily enforcing a Union...) is too.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
    Bluesguy likes this.
  22. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    16,904
    Likes Received:
    5,681
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Interesting. I was one of those so disgusted with the choices which each major party gave us, I made sure I went to the polls to official register my protest against both by voting third party. Some 9 million folks did the same as I. Also a lot of people who disliked both candidates ended up voting for the lesser of two evils, the least worst major party candidate, the candidate they wanted to lose the least. Not win mind you, but the candidate they wanted to lose the least. 25% of all Americans disliked both candidates and didn't want neither one to become the next president. This included 54% of all independents.

    https://news.gallup.com/opinion/pol...mericans-dislike-presidential-candidates.aspx

    I realize we have a two party system in which one or the other major party's candidate will win. But is letting each party chose their candidate, then making us choose between the best way. We know how that worked in 2016, one party chose a candidate with a 36% favorable/60% unfavorable to oppose the other candidate 38% favorable/58% unfavorable. Letting each major party choose their candidate made sense from FDR through Eisenhower then 80% of all Americans plus or minus affiliated or identified with both major parties. That dropped to 70% from IKE until Reagan, then it dropped to 60% until Obama and if Gallup has party affiliation right, it's at 56% today. That leaves 44% of Americans out of the selection process unless one happens to live in an open primary state.

    I don't think vetting would help. That is basically what the GOP and the Democrats did when they came up with Trump and Clinton. Each party vetted their own candidates and each came up with whom they did. I must admit, I don't know if I have a better idea. Perhaps if we had a viable third party, we could get party affiliation back to to the 80% mark. Now that isn't going to happen. I've toyed with the jungle primary like Louisiana has and we had in Georgia for the 6th Congressional District. That when all candidates are placed on the ballot regardless of party with a runoff if no candidate receives 50% plus one vote.

    I really don't know of a better idea. All I know is around 60% of all Americans weren't satisfied with the choices given in 2016.
     
  23. Spim

    Spim Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,664
    Likes Received:
    6,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    a viable candidate is a good start. 2016 was perfect for that. 2020 is looking the same at least for me.

    Congress, house, the same. just put one out there, my vote is automatic, and I'm not alone.

    The only thing I hate worse than the Republican party is the Democratic Party.
     
  24. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,618
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can take or leave the Electoral College myself.
    I don't believe the justifications for it make much sense in today's world,
    but I don't believe its particularly harmful either. It does skew results, but not really by much.
    ...it just seems that way when the other components of our election system mean that even a small
    skew can have a large impact, i.e. the difference between one political extreme and its polar opposite.

    FPTP Plurality Voting on the other hand has got to go sooner or latter if we want to ensure election results remain even remotely accurately representative of the will of the people going forwards. Don't get me wrong though, FPTP Plurality works perfectly fine (representation-wise) if an overwhelming majority of the population are in general agreement on the issues, or if there truly are only two options to be had. But it just isn't sustainable long-term (representation-wise) once the policies for which there is broad agreement on have all been put in place and we are left with only the more contentious stuff to deal with. It may have served us OK for a long while, but it seems the U.S. may have crossed that threshold. The problems we deal with today, like it or not, in a lot of ways, are much more nuanced than those of the past. And our individual views on how to handle said problems are more nuanced as well. But FPTP Plurality voting is not a system set up to handle nuance. And that shortcoming of our current system causes all sorts of issues, one of which being that even if most of the people want an independent, third, or moderate party to get the reins… the system itself precludes such.

    On that note, you yourself support the idea of having a viable third/independent party, right?
    Do you agree that switching from FPTP Plurality to a Ranked system would give third/independent/moderate parties/candidates a fairer shot at actually winning and getting into office?
    And if so, what exactly would make you prefer FPTP Plurality over Ranked?....

    FYI... the phrase "Winner take all" is a bit ambiguous in this context. When I mention FPTP or Plurality,
    I specifically mean an election system where you can only pick one choice, and that's it,
    as opposed to one where you can rank, weight, or hold a runoff, etc.

    -Meta
     
  25. Spim

    Spim Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    7,664
    Likes Received:
    6,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hear you and we've discussed this you did a whole thread on the subject, it was very informative and worthy of discussion.

    I'm just not convinced that changing that would actually help the third party. I want a legitimate party with influence not a warm fuzzy feeling where they go from 3% to 6%.

    Maybe it's my failure to understand the potential identity or existence of a 3rd. the independent political "party" I've given up on the Libertarian/green and everything else they're just hopeless, lovable but hopeless.

    Can't we just make a third-party out of the registered Independents and say 'boom' were having a primary and some debates and all that good stuff? ( boy I sure just made that sound simple cheap $$$ and easy)

    the 5th grader in me wants to hijack the registered independent, dozens of Millions pre-registered primed and willing to vote in the primaries which are closed in many States. why cant we do that? show me the petition I'm in.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2019

Share This Page