Elective Office

[JOEBIALEK]

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.

 

[Ed]

Start with term limits, all else will follow.

 

[DavidJames]

Start with term limits, all else will follow.

Term limits are the ultimate "Nanny State" act. Government preventing the people from voting for who they want to serve them.

 

[Ed]

Term limits are the ultimate "Nanny State" act. Government preventing the people from voting for who they want to serve them.

Put it to a vote then.

 

[Rob Lister]

Term limits are the ultimate "Nanny State" act. Government preventing the people from voting for who they want to serve them.

Sometimes I agree. Sometimes I don't. What day is this?

I agree for the reasons you stated...on some days.

I disagree because the office held can be a huge advantage in being re-elected. The incumbent re-election rate speaks to this, but not conclusively.

I'd like a compromise on the federal level.

2 terms for president (like it is)
4 terms for senators
12 terms for representatives.

Either that or draft the lot of them like you would a jury (just kidding)

 

[SezMe]

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.

What would be your justification for disallowing the people to vote for whomever they want?

And what would be your evidence that such a required career path would yield better government?

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Elective Office

And what would be your evidence that such a required career path would yield better government?

We have no statesmen, we have men (largely) who pander and would sell out our country in order to get elected. It is not government, it is a career with all of the negatives that that implies.

Cincinnatus' first term as dictator began when the Aequi tribe from the east and the Volscians from the southeast began to menace Rome. The Roman Senate pleaded with Cincinnatus to assume the mantle of dictator in order to save the city.

According to analysts, Cincinnatus had settled into a life of farming and knew that his departure might mean starvation for his family if the crops went unsown in his absence. He assented to the request anyway and within sixteen days had defeated the Aequi and the Volscians. His immediate resignation of his absolute authority with the end of the crisis has often been cited as an example of good leadership, service to the public good, and the virtue of modesty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus

Given clever redistricting (along with profiling) an incumbent stands a very good chance of getting reelected. The process is being manipulated and "free choice" is less so.

I think that if we had limits, more people who have admirable qualities (like busnessmen who actually ran something and turned a profit) would be willing to take time from their life and serve knowing that the seduction of neverending power is not in the cards.

Dottering old men who are barely continent serving 35 years is an abonination to me. It is "serve" not rule and that distinction has been lost.

 

[SezMe]

Re: Re: Re: Elective Office

Dottering old men who are barely continent serving 35 years is an abonination to me. It is "serve" not rule and that distinction has been lost.

Agreed, but I don't think term limits is the solution (which is a 180 degree shift - I used to be a big fan). But you did touch on what I think is the problem: lawmakers drawing their own districts. I think it is Iowa that has instituted a different system and they have more competitive elections.

 

[sackett]

Democracy is hard work

There’s certainly one good argument for term limits: a politician can only steal and destroy for a maximum of, usually, eight years.

But that’s also an argument against term limits: a politician serving his last term is in fact a lame duck, with nothing more to hope or fear from the voters. Unless he’s recalled (a laborious process), he can use his final term to loot and make mischief with no restraints but criminal law – and I think that politicians, like the outright crooks, habitually believe that they won’t get caught. Often they aren’t.

A politician holding down an office with no term limits must periodically face the voters, and no matter how big his machine, no matter how well-greased the wheels in his constituency, he can be kicked out if he doesn’t deliver or at least appear to deliver.

Here in Detroit, our squatting, excuse me, sitting mayor just got whipped in the primary. Come November, he’s very likely to find himself off the public payroll for the first time in his life. Fear? Anxiety? Bewilderment? Panic? You have no idea. There are no term limits for mayors in Detroit.

I like the smell of a frightened politician in the morning. Wednesday morning in Detroit smelled uncommonly sweet.

 

[chulbert]

Re: Democracy is hard work

A politician holding down an office with no term limits must periodically face the voters, and no matter how big his machine, no matter how well-greased the wheels in his constituency, he can be kicked out if he doesn’t deliver or at least appear to deliver.

In theory. In practice, incumbents have an astonishingly high re-election rate.

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Re: Democracy is hard work

In theory. In practice, incumbents have an astonishingly high re-election rate.

That is demonstratably true but...this is hard for me to argue but it needs to be addressed...you could be confusing cause and effect.

The competition for most high elected offices is very grand. The 'winner' must be a rare breed indeed.

Is it not expected that his political skills would increase by holding the office?

IOW, perhaps the fact that he is such a rare breed is what allows him to win again and again?

Plus, in congressional officies, senority lends influence (committee seats, chairs, positions of leadership, in-ship with the exectutive, etc). Not to dis' the guy but does anyone honestly think Ted Kennedy wins elections because he's a great campaigner? Does he even bother campaigning anymore? I doubt it.

Where am I going with this, you ask?

I have no idea. Just thoughts popping in my head.

 

[sackett]

Re: Re: Democracy is hard work

In theory. In practice, incumbents have an astonishingly high re-election rate.

True, unhappily. People vote for the name that's most familiar to them. Successful (i.e., frequently re-elected) politicos claim that they stay in office because they're doing a good job. Voter apathy? Voter laziness? No, nah, nein, never, nuh-UH!

I cite Detroit's case just to show that a spectacularly bad incumbent can get his budt kicked. But Kwame Kilpatrick happens to be the first Detroit incumbent mayor to lose a primary in FIFTY YEARS!

OTOH, Michigan governors can only serve two terms. After what seemed like a lifetime of Babyface Johnny Engler, he finally had to empty his desk and slouch off. It was like daylight after a dark night!

 

[sackett]

Re: Re: Re: Democracy is hard work

... The 'winner' must be a rare breed indeed. ... perhaps the fact that he is such a rare breed is what allows him to win again and again?...

You take a more sanguine view of politicians than I do -- and there's nothing wrong with that. If we expect much of a man in office, maybe, just possibly, he'll rise to meet our expectations.

I fear that politics often coarsen a man, teaching him, unless he has an unusally reflecting sort of mind, that a peccant public life is acceptable. Certainly he won't see many noble models to follow.

But I'm poisoned -- enjoyably! -- by the Canadian attitude toward politicians (I'm typing this barely 4 miles from Canada, and I listen to CBC2 by preference): pols are a bunch of corrupt clowns, and they're to be kept in office only as long as they're amusing. Canada is a sensible country, not much at war with human nature.

 

[chulbert]

Re: Re: Re: Democracy is hard work

The competition for most high elected offices is very grand. The 'winner' must be a rare breed indeed.

Is it not expected that his political skills would increase by holding the office?

IOW, perhaps the fact that he is such a rare breed is what allows him to win again and again?

You may have a valid point - if someone can win once, it's reasonable to assume they can win again.

However, is this phenomenon limited to "high elected offices"? According to the National Conference of State Legislatures*, in 1994, state legislatures saw 90% of incumbants reelected. And that, according to the NCSL, was an "unusually large turnover".

I might posit that the problem is actually worse as you approach local offices due to a) the fact people care less and b) challengers are even more unfamiliar to voters.

* http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/incmb1.htm

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Re: Democracy is hard work

Why just not voting for the same person is seen as some kind of impossible task while at the same time proposing to vote to not be allowed to vote for the same guy is seen as a legitimate solution is a real poser. It seems like the electorate is trying to lose weight by hiding the cookies...

It's just ivory tower three-bong-hit style "you know what is wrong with this country today" run amok... as somehow disqualifying those that have been percieved as the best candidates in the past will somehow increase the quality of future candidates... an example of wanting to do something about a problem that doesn't exist in the first place and if it did there is a chance to fix it every two, four, or six years....

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Democracy is hard work

You may have a valid point - if someone can win once, it's reasonable to assume they can win again.

However, is this phenomenon limited to "high elected offices"? According to the National Conference of State Legislatures*, in 1994, state legislatures saw 90% of incumbants reelected. And that, according to the NCSL, was an "unusually large turnover".

I might posit that the problem is actually worse as you approach local offices due to a) the fact people care less and b) challengers are even more unfamiliar to voters.

* http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/incmb1.htm

The problem is showing the harm from this 90% re-election rate.

It seems odd that we posit that those who lack experience at a task will be better than those that are experienced. Yes, maybe the system is biased towards incumbants. The question remains is what criteria we use to declare this a "bad" thing, seeing that it seems beyond obvious (to me anyway) that stability is in and of itself positive.

I'm reminded of P.J. O'Rourke's account (from Parlament of Whores?) of spending time with his Senator, and his amazement as to the complexity and difficulty of the job.... There seems to me a rather established but unsupported common belief that these jobs are just some big happy lark...

 

[DavidJames]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Democracy is hard work

Yes, maybe the system is biased towards incumbants.

Agreed, there are also legitimate problems which provide incumbents unfair advantage, redistricting, can be one of them. Fix those problems, don't take away my right to vote for the person who has served me well by some arbitrary law.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Either that or draft the lot of them like you would a jury (just kidding)

Actually, I've been advocating just that for about 20 years now. It sounds laughable at first, but when you really think about it, it's much closer to the concept of a government composed of citizen-statesmen that the founders had in mind in the first place.

If we trust our judicial system to laypersons chosen essentially by lottery, then why is it so ludicrous to suggest that we choose our legislators or even the chief executive and his or her running mate the same way? I suppose many executive offices would require that we limit the pool of eligible candidates to those "qualified" (whatever that would mean in any given context) to carry out the duties of each office.

Really, there are no qualifications related to merit or skill for legislators. I don't see how choosing them for one term each at random would be such a bad thing. It would completely eliminate the influence of PACs and other special interest groups. Money would have no influence on re-elections, because there wouldn't be any. Bribes would still be a threat, but a special legislative accounting committee from the executive branch could oversee that, with severe penalties for offering or accepting bribes or favors.

Anyway, it would remove some degree of accountability to the people that legislators who face re-election now have, but I think much of that accountability is illusory anyway.

AS

 

[Suddenly]

Actually, I've been advocating just that for about 20 years now. It sounds laughable at first, but when you really think about it, it's much closer to the concept of a government composed of citizen-statesmen that the founders had in mind in the first place.

If we trust our judicial system to laypersons chosen essentially by lottery, then why is it so ludicrous to suggest that we choose our legislators or even the chief executive and his or her running mate the same way? I suppose many executive offices would require that we limit the pool of eligible candidates to those "qualified" (whatever that would mean in any given context) to carry out the duties of each office.

Really, there are no qualifications related to merit or skill for legislators. I don't see how choosing them for one term each at random would be such a bad thing. It would completely eliminate the influence of PACs and other special interest groups. Money would have no influence on re-elections, because there wouldn't be any. Bribes would still be a threat, but a special legislative accounting committee from the executive branch could oversee that, with severe penalties for offering or accepting bribes or favors.

Anyway, it would remove some degree of accountability to the people that legislators who face re-election now have, but I think much of that accountability is illusory anyway.

AS

Well.. we don't really "trust our judicial system to laypersons" seeing that they are limited to determining findings of fact and even then the only jury decision (AFAIK) that cannot be overturned by a judge is a "not guilty" verdict in a criminal case.

The framers may have been fond of the concept of the citizen statesman, but they were also fond of the concept of aristocracy in that we want the best people to govern thus the concept of a republic as a combination of popular and aristocratic rule, let people chose the best people to govern rather than a pure democracy where we all govern...

Of course, "the founders intented" is roughly as precise as "what Jesus really meant" as support for a claim, so who knows...

 

[AmateurScientist]

Well.. we don't really "trust our judicial system to laypersons" seeing that they are limited to determining findings of fact and even then the only jury decision (AFAIK) that cannot be overturned by a judge is a "not guilty" verdict in a criminal case.

The framers may have been fond of the concept of the citizen statesman, but they were also fond of the concept of aristocracy in that we want the best people to govern thus the concept of a republic as a combination of popular and aristocratic rule, let people chose the best people to govern rather than a pure democracy where we all govern...

Of course, "the founders intented" is roughly as precise as "what Jesus really meant" as support for a claim, so who knows...

Good points. Of course, I could argue that Congress is limited by the Supreme Court's decisions when its laws are challenged, but that is a tangent that I don't wish to explore at the moment.

My point about citizens and jury service is this. In my experience, which is purely anecdotal, on the whole, average, off-the-street jurors do a very good job of administering justice in their findings of fact. They usually try earnestly to apply principles of fairness and justness when deliberating and reaching their verdicts based on the law as explained to them, and as it applies to the evidence before them. They do this using their common sense, life experience, and guidance from the court. By and large, the jury system works remarkably well.

There is no reason Congress couldn't work equally well employing randomly chosen citizens. They could apply their own common sense, life experience, and guidance from more experienced legislators (you could still stagger their terms, so you would always have some experienced members, and some freshmen too), and perhaps some professional experts in government and law (especially constitutional law) as an advisory board. They would propose bills, debate them, and vote on them or kill them in committee, just as Congress does now. They would fashion the law and policy of the land, representing their constituents in their home districts or states, just as Congress does now, but more directly so, being unburdened by big money in politics.

Anyway, you don't really believe the people choose the best qualified persons to run government, do you? Come on, the electorate of Missouri chose a dead man for a Senate seat in 2000, knowing full well he was dead before the election. California voters elected Sonny Bono's arm-candy widow with no qualifications related to governing (for that matter, Sonny Bono had none either) to represent them in the House. They also elected an actor/champion bodybuilder as their governor. Why? Because he's rich and famous and well-liked. For that matter, my state elected a deluded, meglomaniac cynical fundie as its chief jurist. In none of those cases did the people choose the best qualified person. I could go on and on with examples.

In elections big and small, usually the candidates who are best known win. Therefore, those who get elected tend to be those with the best marketing campaigns. Often, that means the one who spends the most on advertising wins. Modern election politics is much more like Madison Avenue advertising than White House or Capitol Hill governing or policy making.

That's hardly the kind of meritocracy I suspect even you agree the founders probably had in mind. I fail to see how my suggestion is any worse. It's not a democracy. It is just as much a republic as one in which the representatives as elected, rather than drafted. The only difference is in how they get chosen. It would involve much less pandering to constituents and special interests and governing by poll results, and much more using own's judgment and sense to fashion policy and to support or oppose the proposals of colleagues. The coalition building and tit for tat agreements that are inherent in politics would of course remain, as they probably should.

By the way, we do have a much better idea what the founders had in mind than we do about what Jesus meant. We don't have any writings by Jesus himself. We don't even know if he was a real historical person, some amalgam of several persons, or pure myth and fiction. Everything we "know" about Jesus is from anonymous third persons' writings (except for those of Paul of Tarsus) which not only conflict with each other in some of their accounts of the same events, but also have been transliterated and transposed from ancient tongues, undoubtedly losing something in the translations. Furthermore, they were not even contemporary writings about Jesus and his thoughts and teachings.

In contrast, we do in fact have many contemporary writings from many of the founders of the US themselves, and we have a well-documented historical background in which they wrote. They wrote in English, the same language, with relatively few substantive changes over time, that we all know and use today. We know what their concerns and ideals were. We know from whom they borrowed when fashioning their grand experiment, and we know on what they modeled it.

Founders' intent may be a concept which is often abused and misunderstood, and even misappropriated, but it does in fact have currency and legitimacy in analyzing law and government. Remember, ours is a government of laws, not of men. By and large, we know the principles and ideals upon which the founders created the constitution and its bill of rights. The texts are not perfect, and some of the writing could have been clarified in retrospect, but it's hardly the same as guessing what Jesus really meant.

AS