Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Elections cost lotsa money. Why not let suitable candidates audition for the job? We would vote by phone. 3-week trial. Interested?
RosieG

Elections cost lotsa money. Why not let suitable candidates audition for the job? We would vote by phone. 3-week trial. Interested?

After we evaluated the decisions they made on our behalf in those 3 weeks and we had given all candidates a chance at it we could shut down the auditions and vote. No debates. No rallies. No attack ads. No phone calls. No flyers. No inconvenience. We could dissolve political parties. No campaigning. Who needs them? Just let the people decide without the middlemen screwing things up! The candidates. The people. The  3-week audition. The results. The vote. What could be simpler? No dirty tricks. No hacking. No stacking the deck. No foreign country interference. No leaks. No espionage/sabotage/treason. No traitors sleeping with the enemy.

Posted - February 16, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • 6023
    Still wouldn't work.
    WHO decides who is a "suitable candidate"?  Still the major political parties.  THAT is the problem.

    The idea I have always espoused is to do away with elected positions above county level.  Instead, people would be chosen at random from the rolls of eligible adults - similar to a jury pool - and they get paid their regular wages.  Thus, the chances of someone serving multiple terms is virtually zero ... you get a good mix of political beliefs and economic classes ... and they are not beholden to any political organization in order to serve the office, so are far more likely to reach compromise.  And since politics isn't their career, they are far less likely to introduce legislation only to be doing something.
      February 16, 2017 7:58 AM MST
    0