But what is the alternative to career politicians? Navigating the quagmire of policymaking requires a lot of specialized information and knowledge is power. If we go with amateur elected officials then power will accumulate in the hands of the professional staffers they will necessarily employ. That pushes political power even further away from the people. They can’t even fire those policymakers who screw up.
To me it seems that what we should be doing, electorally that is, is everything we can to make genuine public service ( however we wish to define that ) the path to reelection. We can certainly do a lot better than what we have now where our politicians openly whore themselves out for campaign contributions. I don’t like term limits ( they further limit the already pisspoor choices available to voters ) but like BG feel that forcing pols out of office every once in a while is better than lifetime bans.
No analogy needed. I have stated outright in this thread that politicians are victims too.
Because we deserve better. Why would we not prefer a system that encouraged better options than we are given now?
I’m really biting my tongue on a sarcastic response here. Are you really that naive that you don’t understand how much money and influence it takes to be nominated and elected? I live in a state where congressional district lines are drawn for and against specific individuals. Do you really think Joanne Nobody can compete with that kind of power?
And good people can and do get elected. I would guess that many if not most people seek office originally for idealistic purposes. So what? They are victims too stuck in a shitpile they can do nothing to reform. Some stick and do what they can here and there but it should be no surprise that most become cynical and begin to resent their constituents for public demands they have no ability to fulfill. From there corruption is only one tiny step.
Why did John Porkbarrel and Bob Special-Interests get elected instead? Because more people voted for them than voted for Joanne. So it’s the voters who decided they’d rather have Porkbarrel and Special-Interests in office not the politicians themselves.
Of course, in a democracy the right decisions and the popular decisions ought to be the same thing, because the people are a rational force who will elect a candidate based on the merits of their actio-
[Homer Simpson]When will people learn? Democracy just doesn’t work![/HS]
Take the office of governor of a big state. It takes tens of millions to run a campaign to win. Obviously, you don’t put all your wealth into a giant money pit. That means that the position is worth more than tens of millions of dollars.
That scares the fuck out of me. You’d think that, corruption removed, the market would determine how much to spend. I’m not so sure the market hasn’t been tainted to the degree where it takes a morbidly wealthy individual to do such things.
This also scares the fuck out of me.
I desperately wait for the day in which the fuck gets scared back into me.
To quote a cliche, money isn’t everything. Elected office generally is a money pit - you put more in than you could possibly get out. People don’t spend tens of millions of dollars to get elected in order to turn a financial profit. They spent that money getting elected in order to acquire power.
Well, those huge expensive campaigns do not come out of the pockets of the candidates. In fact, a number of state and federal regulations limit the amount that a candidate can spend. It is always easier to play with other people’s money.
As to term limits: I have seen no evidence that the rash of term limits imposed in the early/mid 1990s has helped any state that imposed them. My recollection of the various legislatures that were gutted of “old hands” has been that those bodies have fallen into the habits of rash and impulsive lawmaking by amateurs and an increase in partisanship at the expense of considered collegiality.
I BEG to differ-here in MA, the first rule for newly-elected politicians: STEAL as much as you can! Get jobs for your friends and supporters-keep raising budgets and SPEND-that contractor who got the job for a new school will be very greatful to you, come reelection time-meanwhile, get your pension vested-and keep on spending-it doesn’t matter for what, just be sure that the beneficiaries PAY UP! Then, when you hit 60 and tire of the game, arrange for the state to pay you back for unused “sick time”, vactin time, etc., with a multimillion “buyout” and good pension, you retire to Florida, leaving the taxpayers holding the bag.
Don’t tell me politics doesn’t pay off-vitually every MA senator retires a millionaire!
I would say the “problem” is a little deeper than that. You got the first part right, but the missing half is where, upon arriving in the Capital, they learn that they had to say whatever it took to get elected and then now they have to do whatever it takes to get enough authority/power to be reasonably effective.
The problem is that what they say and do are usually opposing items.
Seniority matters. You get more influential comittees and eventually get to run them based on length of time served, There is value in reelecting in terms of power of representatives.
John and Bob get elected because they can afford to get elected. Joanne can’t. It takes millions of dollars to win a major campaign and, as Tom points out, most of that comes from other people. John and Bob have done enough favors to earn the campaign contributions needed to give them a shot. So realistically the voters, the victims of this vicious system, are stuck with a choice between John and Bob and not between them and Joanne. Sure individuals might choose to give her their vote, if they’ve even heard of her, but they do so at the expense of the chances of the major candidate they dislike less than the other.
No. John and Bob get elected because they get more votes. Stop trying to claim that the voters are somehow forced to vote for people against their will. I realize it’s more comfortable to blame somebody else for our problems rather than admit we’re the cause of them, but ignoring the reality won’t fix the problems.
I would prefer to leave personal motivations out of it. I haven’t indulged in any speculation about your agenda in avoiding all but the most superficial aspect of the question at hand. Nor am I ignoring any reality that I am aware of. It seems to me that the reality is that the system limits our choices. Blaming the voters for picking poor candidates from these limited alternatives won’t fix the problem. Perhaps I am wrong but you aren’t going to convince me of that by ignoring my argument and blindly repeating your shallow observation.
People don’t act in a vacuum. Voting is influenced not only by personal desires but also by outside factors such as who has a chance of winning. Personally I have never had the pleasure of casting a vote for someone I thought to be the, or one of the, best possible person for the job. Instead I have always had to pick from the best alternative available. Now, I could write in the name of my best ideal candidate but to what purpose? They won’t win.
You’re not looking at the big picture, Nemo. As a voter, I have a free choice among all the candidates on the ballot for a given office. (Assuming my vote will be honestly counted, but that’s a different problem.) But I have very little say in who gets on the ballot. Every candidate who makes it will have passed a “wealth primary” early in the nomination process (meaning, not that the candidate has to be independently wealthy but that he/she has to be backed by serious money, or nobody will even take him/her seriously as a potential candidate in the first place). That’s no way to run a democracy. A plutocracy, yes.
And I, in turn, feel you guys are ignoring the 800 lb gorilla that’s sitting in your laps. I realize that money, special interests, celebrity, party politics, and airtime are all big factors in elections. But only because we, the voters, allow ourselves to be influenced by these things. If we looked beyond them they wouldn’t matter.
We aren’t ignoring it. It’s so blindingly obvious that it doesn’t merit discussion. Yes, improved voting behavior improved we result in improved candidates. Again, your observation is shallow indeed. But since you have no interest in exploring the reasons voting behavior is so poor it seems there is no point in further discussion.
