Is it ethical to require a competency test to vote?
- Thread starter Dirk
- Start date
So I want to run for office.
In your world where do I pick up my pile of money (campaigns are expensive you know)?
Yeah, I'm sick and tired of these guys:
http://www.politicsol.com/advocacy-directory/advocacy-environment.html
Why is it that you think lobbyists are necessarily bad?
They are the specialists in the subject matter and the subjects they deal with, the environment, energy, global warming, health care, finances, communication, construction standards, transportation etc etc are complex issues and you need specialists to help our legislators understand the issues involved and the potential impact of legislation, and for nearly every position, there are lobbyists on both sides of the issues, because in the end, neither side has the best answer.
The fact is creating the complex legislation our country needs simply can't be done in a vacuum by a bunch of legislators with only general knowledge of these complex subjects. Good legislation requires a lot of outside help.
Nah, your just a cynic.
Arthur
How about a $3 charge on your income tax form? Debates can happen on public TV.
I see your point about lobbyists, all I'm saying is take the money out. You can still meet with these people, but their influence would be dependent on whether the cause resonates in elections, not whether the lobbying group can afford to buy support.
Yeah, I can see how you can collect the money.
Though at $3 per income tax form, that's less than 1/2 a billion and in 2008 they spend about 5 Billion just on Federal Elections.
Seems like the amount of debates, public meetings, ads and so on would have to be severely curtailed.
As to your public TV, that would eliminate the millions and millions of people who don't watch PBS.
But you still didn't tell me how I can pick up my bag of money for my campaign.
If you look at it more closely you will find that lobbyests work all year long in Washington to help push their case, but for every lobbyest pushing to save the spotted owl there is another pushing for serving baked spotted owl with truffle sauce.
Arthur
I can't see any serious reason to assert that limiting debates to a publicly-provided, freely-available TV network will fail to reach anyone who wants to see them. Anyone with a TV has access to PBS. If they want to watch the debates, they can tune their TV to PBS. If they don't have a TV, they can go to the PBS website. If they don't have a computer, they can go to the local library and access it there.
The idea that there are people who'd like to watch a debate, but would choose not to do so because it is on PBS, is just silly. There is nothing to prevent anyone from watching PBS. This kind of thing is one of the primary reasons for having public broadcasting in the first place.
As ethical as allowing incompetent people to form governments. Which we seem to do all the time.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Is it ethical to let imcompetent people to exist in a societ that requires competence? Or is it unethical to allow such a society were all can not be compitent to said society?
Good now that you want to run for office, you have to qualify. That means getting off your derriere and get the pettions necessary to qualify. In a system of publicly funded campains every one gets the same amount of money - and that money would be very modest by today's standards.
If that is the case, and they are simply subject matter experts, then why do they need to contribute to campaings? Why do they need to offer lucrative jobs to congressmen/women and their families while they are in and out of office?
I don't think people would have a problem with lobbyists if they were just subject matter experts as you claim. But that is not the case, they are often pushing an agenda at the expense of the nation's tax payers and middle class.
If the government needs outside help they can get it, and they can fund it. That is why we has a committee set up in congress, so that subject matter experts can be called before congress rather than in some back room or on some beach in some exotic location.
Last edited:
The really funny part about this is, if those folks advocating competency tests were successful and a good competency test were put in place, these competency advocates would not be able to qualify to vote.
Hell their candidates wouldn't qualify to vote (e.g. Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Palin, et al.).You'd have to carefully search the candidates for sausages in their trousers. :deal:
The idea that it's racist to confirm the identity of voters is one of the most egregious uses of the "race card". To not confirm that the person showing up to vote is who they say they are is simply irresponsible and calls into question the integrity of the entire democratic process.
I need to get petitions in order to get my sack of cash?
Well then, how many signed petitions do I need and isn't that the government giving a HUGE advantage to wealthy people who live in NYC vs poor people who happen to live in Minot ND?
Well how much money is that?
I mean it IS a national campaign after all and I do need to participate in all the debates and of course I want to get to every state and speak at as many town halls as possible, distribute flyers and pamplets, run a web site etc etc, or are you saying I can only campaign via PBS TV?
Not all lobbyests contribute to campaigns.
The NAACP certainly lobbys but they don't contribute to any campaign.
Again not something that all (or even most) lobbyests do.
But go ahead show some stats to back up your claim.
Yeah, I'm tired of Greepeace and the WWF, aren't you?
Oh so you don't think people have the right to petition their government?
They have to wait to be called on?
Really? You think that's how lobbyest's operate, on some beach in some exotic location???? Get real. They are almost all located in DC and do their business in DC.
As to calling subject matter experts, you want to give every congressional committe subpeona power throughout the legislative process?
Yeah, that makes sense.
Arthur
Last edited:
No it's not.
Less than 3 million viewers get their news from PBS, while about 10 times as many from Network and Cable outlets.
http://www.thewrap.com/media/column...-cbs-evening-news-has-brutal-quarter?page=0,1
Didn't say it would PREVENT anyone from watching it, but without the ability to pay for time on the stations most people actually watch, as is done now, the ability to get your message out to the 200 million voters would be severely restricted.
If candidates didn't need to spend tens of millions of dollars in air time they wouldn't do so.
But they do.
Then of course there are also print adds, and there is no Public newspaper.
If you say the population would be just as well informed if the only outlet was debates were carried on a network that not that many people watch, then you aren't being rational.
Arthur
Last edited:
kx000
Valued Senior Member
No I want to uthanize society until I round up all the rapist, and murderers and they are burnt at the steak. That is my goal, to insue chaos, and to imply the law of right and wrong. Because people think because they can, it is their right, but this is simply not true. You can touch your child, but I WILL find you, and I WILL carry out justice. NOT because I can, but because I want to, and because it is right.
It is not fair to live in a society with people who work to undo civil rest.
ardentauthor
Registered Member
A test would definitely benefit the greater good. It doesn't even have to be long; it could just consist of a person asking the voter "Who are X and Y, and what do they think of [various political issues]?" That way we could confirm that the voter knew about who he or she was voting for.