The narcissists are going to be attracted in any case. The goal is to also attract competent people smart enough to have other, even better, options. Money is only part of the solution. Service should be prestigious, including civil service.
I can’t agree with this at all. I would consider MTG to be far beyond the bounds of anyone elected to the British Parliament. Rather than comparing a feather to a bubble, as you suggest, I’d see it more like a feather and a brick.
I was going to post something similar. If we could eliminate meaningless words and phrases like “woke” and “identity politics,” we might get better results.
That’s not true of the US system in at least one respect. If I understand correctly, the US system of government was not intended to involve political parties. That just came in as an inevitable by-product.
I feel we’re at cross purposes - I agree that MTG is beyond the bounds of any British MP. I was just saying Truss was beyond the bounds of any (modern day) British PM. And therefore didn’t last long.
I’m not sure what part of my posts you’re disagreeing with. I didn’t mean to imply that I thought UK politics was similar to US politics, rather the opposite (although as I also said, both certainly have their problems, and problem characters).
Better news media would help—media that gives more publicity to the boring-but-competent politicians.
100%, You can’t find decent news coverage on any candidate
How about we start with the U.S. Citizenship test? There are 100 questions, although those applying for citizenship are only asked 10 each, and need to get six correct. I think we could ask our political candidates all 100 questions and accept 60 as a passing score.
Some are better than others, though. In an effort to avoid the “The perfect is the enemy of the good” problem, what news outlets are better than others when it comes to candidate info?
The actual forms change over time to meet the needs of the day, but the overall project has not much changed.
The UK system wasn’t designed at all. It just growed, and any blueprints there appear to be are an attempt to codify what already works or what is intended to prevent what doesn’t - all amendments, no constitution.
(For example, it’s only in relatively recent decades that political parties have had any official legal status).
And relatively recent that MPs were paid, a demand of the Chartist movement to allow working men [sic] to take up politics
Thank you! It’s an established fact that the candidates who spend the most money usually win, which means an honest, high quality candidate who doesn’t have the kind of “buy-a-congressman” financial backer that his opponent has, will most likely lose to Shady John Doe because people believe bullshit if they see and hear it enough times on TV and the radio. Thus the success of Fox News.
The argument that we need better voters to me inevitably leads down the slippery slope back to “only white male land owners could vote”. I happen to be an absolutist in this regard, everyone should have the right to vote, (including non-citizens as they are impacted by the government).
Regarding the argument that any representative should have worked a minimum wage job for some period of time is just reverse classism. That is like saying every judge should have served time for a crime, 'cause then they would understand. Nonsensical, yah?
That would at least have the advantage of making sure that the citizenship test didn’t get made unreasonably hard.
I also think that, once elected, officeholders should be paid decently. So they’d soon have, if they didn’t already, experience both at being poorly paid and being well paid.
But the idea is that they should understand what they’re expecting people to be able to live on; because among other things they’re going to be deciding what that is. Judges aren’t in a position of deciding how the prisons are run – though I do think they should educate themselves about it.
I wonder why this question is on there. Sure, most people know it, but it doesn’t seem at all like the other questions on the test.
When is the last day you can send in federal income tax forms?*
April 15
That isn’t even a really accurate answer.
For one thing, if the 15th is a Sunday or a legal holiday in DC, then it’ll be different. For a more major thing, you can send them in later than that; you’re just risking having to pay fines if you owe them money. The question (if it’s going to be in there at all) should read “When is usually the last day you can send in federal income tax forms without risking having to pay a penalty for filing late?”
– who, me? nitpicking? on the Dope? Whoever heard of such a thing?
I agree that better educated voters is a key to better candidates. I want to say better informed voters but information is out there, much of it in the form of disinformation and flat out lies. We’ve all got access to information and it’s not helping.
Knowing how the different levels of government work and how taxes work and how the judicial system works is key to being able to get good information and then making good decisions at the polls. If you’re just listening to people lying with abandon, you can be easily swayed.
If a candidate says nothing but the boring and not-so-exciting truth but their opponent brazenly lies, it’s pretty easy for the liar to win an election in America. It’s the exact same thing as the kid running for class president who says “I promise pizza every Friday!” as if they have any sway over the school nutritionist or the USDA. The kid who says “I’ll check with the principal to see if we can alter the menu to get pizza every third Friday” just isn’t getting the votes. The educated voter knows that the first kid is blowing smoke, and the second kid at least has a chance of making change. But the uneducated voter latches on to the promise like it’s a done deal.
I also think that lack of civility in a huge turn off for candidates of decent character. I know several people who were so worried about me running for City Council just because the people in the race I was in were proven to be nutso and mean. Congress has a problem with nutso and mean now too (and previously, the White House). You gotta be a special type of person to be willing to join those bodies and put up with the possibility of harassment from your colleagues, let alone your fellow Americans.
Having a competitive salary is important but, I think, the main thing is to hire people the way that you actually hire people. When your employer is hiring for a new lawyer, you don’t get together all of the plumbers, IT geeks, housewives, HR reps, and etc. in or related to the company, to hold a popularity contest that’s almost purely based on what questions were asked to the candidates by gossips and entertainers that the candidate chose on his own to go talk to. That would not be a good system.
In general, you’re going to try and get other lawyers and skeptical sorts to get into a room with the candidate and put the screws to him, to verify his personality, experience, and field knowledge. You’re going to employ a 3rd party to perform a background check on him. As the output of that process, maybe he’s accepted.
Personally, I advocate a system of bottom-up placement. You issue duty summons to citizens, regularly. Many of those will go to jury duty. If they’re accepted for a jury then they’ll all spend time together in debate on a serious topic. They’ll get a sense for each other and who seems like a reasonable and reliable person. If they don’t get accepted for jury duty then you send them to perform some other community service - picking up litter, painting fences, or whatever. Make them sit together and ask questions that are meant to get to the bottom of whether that’s a smart person who tries to do diligent research and answer problems honestly.
These groups, after having served their time, elect someone to go serve on the government hiring panels.
The hiring panels will 1) review requests for positions by X local government, 2) decide the offering wage, 3) post ads and perform headhunting, 4) review resumes, 5) hold interviews, 6) hire background check companies, and 7) hire folk. They interview the candidates like they’re normal job applicants and decide who to hire. Maybe for the top level candidates like Governor or Secretary of State, they act more like a primary committee, headhunting and recommending a few options who will be elected by the general public at large.
In all cases, candidates apply for the jobs like they’re jobs. You send in a resume and either you get called in or you don’t. Or, alternately, you’ll get a call from the hiring panel asking if you’d be interested in switching careers.
Ultimately, there’s no politics to it. You just get professionals doing their job, hired by apolitical panels, based on proper, in-person vetting.
I think in the pizza scenario, no one believes the “I promise pizza on Fridays” candidate will succeed, while everyone knows the second candidate has little chance of making any real improvement. More, everyone knows the second candidate’s reform can’t begin to touch the real issues that students face in school. The first candidate at least speaks to their alienation, anger, and resentment by promising to fight for the unattainable and so offering a bit of relief from the drudgery, authoritarianism, and monotony of school.
Cite: https://youtu.be/2Oo8QzDHimQ
I think some of this translates into national politics as well.