Log in

View Full Version : Elective Office



JOEBIALEK
28th August 2005, 20:21
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.

LamarLatrell
28th August 2005, 20:57
Pure nonsense.

Seeker
28th August 2005, 21:13
Hi.

I don't want the US government reinvented, I want it gone. It is Capitalist in whatever form it takes.

I don't want term limits, I want to be able to recall an elected official at any time, for any reason.

Diversity is good. I think the system you propose would lead to a monopoly of ideas. Everyone in a particular position will have similar ideas, shaped by a similar set of past experiences. Also, I want to be able to vote for anyone I think suitable for the position. Your credentials for what makes someone suitable are not universal, so I don't think they should be applied universally by limiting everyone's choices.

Furthermore, a community or group of communities should not be forced to have a "mayor" or somesuch, so long as they have some decision-making apparatus (council of elders, town hall meetings, local congress, ect . . .) in place that handles the responsibilities that a mayor would.

A strict legal policy of defined positions and responsibilities, that could easily be plugged into any newly settled land, worked well for starting the American Empire and quickly industrializing the Soviet and Chinese Empires.

Empire is not what I seek. You don't need to conquer the world to unite it. In fact, if the organizations trying to conquer it were to disappear tonight, in the morning there would be one world government, decentralized and run from the bottom up. I don't measure progress in terms of tax revenue, favorable trade imbalances, or units of production. I favor self-rule and self-reliance.

LamarLatrell
28th August 2005, 21:24
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 08:31 PM
Hi.

I don't want the US government reinvented, I want it gone. It is Capitalist in whatever form it takes.

I don't want term limits, I want to be able to recall an elected official at any time, for any reason.

Diversity is good. I think the system you propose would lead to a monopoly of ideas. Everyone in a particular position will have similar ideas, shaped by a similar set of past experiences. Also, I want to be able to vote for anyone I think suitable for the position. Your credentials for what makes someone suitable are not universal, so I don't think they should be applied universally by limiting everyone's choices.

Furthermore, a community or group of communities should not be forced to have a "mayor" or somesuch, so long as they have some decision-making apparatus (council of elders, town hall meetings, local congress, ect . . .) in place that handles the responsibilities that a mayor would.

A strict legal policy of defined positions and responsibilities, that could easily be plugged into any newly settled land, worked well for starting the American Empire and quickly industrializing the Soviet and Chinese Empires.

Empire is not what I seek. You don't need to conquer the world to unite it. In fact, if the organizations trying to conquer it were to disappear tonight, in the morning there would be one world government, decentralized and run from the bottom up. I don't measure progress in terms of tax revenue, favorable trade imbalances, or units of production. I favor self-rule and self-reliance.
Goddamn you're naive.

Seeker
29th August 2005, 01:17
A valid criticism would be that my argument uses circular logic. It is like saying "there is no war without warriors".

The groups that we truly need to defend ourselves against would need to disappear also.

The way to make that happen is unity and international solidarity of working class people.

We have seen how well your way works to improve people's lives in Palestine, Vietnam, and Iraq.

The primary reason you fail is that you cannot win the "hearts and minds" of a people until your own affairs are in order. And the Capitalists are way out of order. War is a racket. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler)

JOEBIALEK
7th September 2005, 01:50
good points