Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

Describe a system of licensing for politicians that is fair and can’t be corrupted by a bad actor.

Describe how the current system is working better.

I don't have to obey your demands. You could look at some of those articles I posted and the Federalist papers they reference.

It isn't impossible and it would trim back some of the worst excesses.

Brosephine, you are the one making the claim that a licensing system would be better; I am asking you to show how it can be protected from corruption and actually be fair to everyone, as I’m sure you expect it to be.

[Robot Parade Leader]

Who gets to choose the standards for politicians?

If it isn't "the people, by voting" then it's not a democracy. That's definitional.

What are you even talking about? What are you saying? That has never, ever, been the way it is in America for President.

https://www.usa.gov/electoral-college#:~:text=The%20Electoral%20College%20is%20not,the%20electors%27%20votes%20by%20Congress

No one here has ever voted for President, not you not me not anybody here, unless they were appointed to the electoral college.

Even before that, people didn't vote for president, even through an electoral college, because the legislature did, but whatever.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/10/fact-check-state-legislators-choose-electors/6204171002/

No, so according to "definitional." America isn't a democracy under whatever you just said.

https://www.history.com/news/presidents-electoral-college-popular-vote
If anything you are saying is true, then why have 5 Presidents lost the popular  vote but won the election?


Why didn't we have Presdient Al Gore instead of Bush.
"The Florida Supreme Court sided with Gore, but Bush appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately voted 5 to 4 to reverse the Florida court’s decision and halt the recount. With Florida in hand, Bush won the Electoral College 271 to 266, while Gore ended up getting 500,000 more votes in the popular vote."

If what you are saying is true, then  Hillary Clinton would have been the President
"In a surprise victory that defied most pre-election polling, outsider Republican candidate Donald Trump beat Democrat Hillary Clinton, wife of the former president, Bill Clinton, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton received 2.8 million more votes in the popular vote—the largest such disparity yet."

What you are saying is simply not true. This type of misinformation is how elections get stolen, from Democrats, by Republicans. That and Gerrymandering,etc. I'm just tired of the overconfident misinformation. What are you talking about?

Describe a system of licensing for politicians that is fair and can’t be corrupted by a bad actor.

Describe how the current system is working better.

I don't have to obey your demands. You could look at some of those articles I posted and the Federalist papers they reference.

It isn't impossible and it would trim back some of the worst excesses.

Brosephine, you are the one making the claim that a licensing system would be better; I am asking you to show how it can be protected from corruption and actually be fair to everyone, as I’m sure you expect it to be.

And I'm asking you to show how the status quo is better without corruption and actually be fair to everyone, as I'm sure you expect it to be.  O, it could possibly be corrupted by a bad actor. And the current system couldn't? Wow, how can we not use the same system to prevent corruption or a better one than we currently have. It isn't impossible and I'm not being assigned homework under the idea that it can't happen if it isn't perfect.

[McTraveller]

Maybe folks honestly don't understand the difference between "representative democracy" and "direct democracy"? "Democracy" isn't a monolithic thing... there are many flavors.

Regardless of the flavor, though, democracy fails when people vote on feelings instead of logic.

[Robot Parade Leader]

Democracy fails when people vote on feelings instead of logic.

Yes.

[Maximum Spin]

What are you even talking about? What are you saying? That has never, ever, been the way it is in America for President.

https://www.usa.gov/electoral-college#:~:text=The%20Electoral%20College%20is%20not,the%20electors%27%20votes%20by%20Congress

No one here has ever voted for President, not you not me not anybody here, unless they were appointed to the electoral college.

Even before that, people didn't vote for president, even through an electoral college, because the legislature did, but whatever.

That... isn't relevant to what I said? Yes, I'm very much aware of that, but what difference does that make? The point is whether the contest is open to anyone, not whether people directly vote for the President.
If you wanted to make your hypothetical licensing board elected themselves, that would still be a democracy, albeit one with an absurdly bad design, but it would obviously not produce the results you hope for.

I mean, did you think that by "the people choose, by voting" I meant the popular vote only? That's just not what I said, so you're just imagining that I said something different and then complaining about what I didn't say. It's a complete non sequitur.

[hector13]

@RBL

I haven’t made any claims that the current system is perfect, while you claim that licensing politicians (not just presidents) would be better.

I’m not interested in assigning you homework, but if you haven’t thought beyond the initial shell of an idea, that’s fine.

I shall give an example of why I consider licensing to be a poor idea: Wisconsin.

https://www.wpr.org/shows/mappedout/how-2011-political-district-map-changed-game-wisconsin

Wisconsin is a swing state, generally balanced between Democrat and Republican voters. In 2011 the Republicans gerrymandered the state election maps in order to hugely benefit them, and were in control of pretty much every branch of state of government since then as a result, even when there are huge swings toward in the national stage.

A few years ago they lost the governorship to a Democrat, and then during the interim between the election and Evers being sworn in, voted to take away some power from the governor because they are children and don’t want their opponents to wield any power when the Democratic will of the state gives them it.

This is something I would not like to see in any sort of licensing for politicians. Even non-partisan bodies are corrupted by politics (the judicial branch at national and state levels, for example) and thus I don’t consider any sort of licensing body will be immune from that, and will be co-opted by one party or another at some point to help themselves, harm their enemies, or both. I don’t think it would be possible to protect a licensing system from that, hence me asking you how you think it could.

[Maximum Spin]

I mean, let me put it like this.

IF, instead of being chosen by democratic vote (between slates offered up by the parties) each election and limited to make their choices according to state law, the members of the electoral college were an unelected bureau with free reign to choose the President however they liked, then yes, America would no longer be a democracy, representative or otherwise.
Since this is not the case, it isn't relevant.

A hypothetical licensing board for political candidates isn't just an indirect democratic apparatus, it's a replacement for democracy.

[Grim Portent]

You could have a democracy that has elements of technocracy involved, or a technocracy with democratic elements if you prefer. You don't need to go full 'only a doctor can be a minister of health' to bring in certain minimum requirements for a politician to run for office, but you also don't need to have universal suffrage to be a democracy.*

In theory a basic civics test on the lines of 'what powers does this position have, what is the legal bounds of their authority, so on and so forth' is neither hard to pass or particularly easy to make exclusionary while still making sure that a politician has at least some knowledge of what they can and can't actually do with the powers of their office. It's just a way of checking that a candidate has read about what a senator or whatever position they seek's job actually is. One thing that I've been seeing here in the UK from the prior government was ministers proposing things that were outright illegal, and fairly obviously so well ahead of time, and then wasting taxpayer money on trying to do it anyway.


*Otherwise most democracies didn't become democracies until the 1900s when they granted the right to vote to all of women, racial minorities and poor people, and that's generally not considered to be the case. A country could have 'only doctors get to vote on the minister of health, soldiers on the minister of defense, etc.' and it would still be a type of democracy.

I mean, let me put it like this.

IF, instead of being chosen by democratic vote (between slates offered up by the parties) each election and limited to make their choices according to state law, the members of the electoral college were an unelected bureau with free reign to choose the President however they liked, then yes, America would no longer be a democracy, representative or otherwise.
Since this is not the case, it isn't relevant.

A hypothetical licensing board for political candidates isn't just an indirect democratic apparatus, it's a replacement for democracy.

Democracy doesn't have to be total to be a democracy. The sole requirement is that some portion of the populace vote for a government. America was a democracy even when black people couldn't vote for example, even if a fairly shit one imo. Similarly a country is a democracy even if it has a law that says 'marxists can't run for government', so long as people still vote for the government.

[Maximum Spin]

I mean, let me put it like this.

IF, instead of being chosen by democratic vote (between slates offered up by the parties) each election and limited to make their choices according to state law, the members of the electoral college were an unelected bureau with free reign to choose the President however they liked, then yes, America would no longer be a democracy, representative or otherwise.
Since this is not the case, it isn't relevant.

A hypothetical licensing board for political candidates isn't just an indirect democratic apparatus, it's a replacement for democracy.

Democracy doesn't have to be total to be a democracy. The sole requirement is that some portion of the populace vote for a government. America was a democracy even when black people couldn't vote for example, even if a fairly shit one imo. Similarly a country is a democracy even if it has a law that says 'marxists can't run for government', so long as people still vote for the government.

The idea of a licensing board for political candidates isn't the same as limiting the franchise. It is giving an unelected group the power to decide the boundaries of politics within a nation. Even in the modern US, where major political parties effectively determine the possible candidates up for election and sometimes even select candidates without a single primary vote, and democracy is therefore highly attenuated, it is in theory possible for anyone to vote for any eligible citizen. Even in the case you mention, a law against marxists running for government, the country can still be said to be a democracy if that law was instituted through a democratic legislative process - not if it was declared from the desk of a bureaucrat-king.

Put it this way: if the Republican party passed such a law and put Donald Trump in charge of the "licensing board" so that he got to decide what politicians would be allowed to run for office in every single election in the country, would you feel that America would still be a democracy in that case? Of course not. With an unelected licensing board, the ability of the people to choose isn't being limited in some way or another; the people are simply being offered a false choice. The difference is categorical.

[Robot Parade Leader]

What are you even talking about? What are you saying? That has never, ever, been the way it is in America for President.

https://www.usa.gov/electoral-college#:~:text=The%20Electoral%20College%20is%20not,the%20electors%27%20votes%20by%20Congress

No one here has ever voted for President, not you not me not anybody here, unless they were appointed to the electoral college.

Even before that, people didn't vote for president, even through an electoral college, because the legislature did, but whatever.

That... isn't relevant to what I said? Yes, I'm very much aware of that, but what difference does that make? The point is whether the contest is open to anyone, not whether people directly vote for the President.
If you wanted to make your hypothetical licensing board elected themselves, that would still be a democracy, albeit one with an absurdly bad design, but it would obviously not produce the results you hope for.

I mean, did you think that by "the people choose, by voting" I meant the popular vote only? That's just not what I said, so you're just imagining that I said something different and then complaining about what I didn't say. It's a complete non sequitur.

It is every relevance to what you said, "If it isn't "the people, by voting" then it's not a democracy. That's definitional." Yeah, you now realize that what you said wasn't so after I  pointed it out. When you make pointed statements like that with no explanation but just declaration, this is what happens. These are historical examples that are well documented and supported by numbers/evidence.

You continue to make assumptions, that Donald Trump would even be eligible for the board or that severe limitations would not be placed on it. Its members could have disclosure and asset limitation requirement and strict ethics limits on no gifts or outside payments. No criminal record. No bankruptcies/cheating people. No large unpaid lawsuit judgments against you. Opinions based on facts verified instead of crap lies like accusing people of eating cats and dogs. He would never qualify.

Even a basic understanding of what the office could and couldn't do would bar him.

Also basic facts like that the government can't control the weather of cause/steer hurricanes
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/republican-debunks-marjorie-taylor-greenes-hurricane-claims-outrageous/ar-AA1rX88r

The board's powers could be limited to specific pre written violations, you know like laws and rules are supposed to be.

"Desk of a bureaucrat-king." Thank you o guardians of civilization from protecting us all from the stupids. Thank you Doctors who run the health department. Thank you Engineers for trying to keep the bridges safe even though the politicians and the stupids have not funded replacing our infrastructure. Thank you air traffic control safety professionals who have devoted your lives to keeping airplanes  safe. Thank you nurses who double check the vital reporting and medical records. Thank you pharmacists in the FDA who make sure the medications we take are safe. All hail the federal employee hiring preference that makes a large part of that workforce military veterans, who fought for our country once and are doing so again as civil servants, and have earned our respect and to never be considered worthless without proof. Bless all forms of intelligence of which you exemplify and the lovely vaccines you made to save us from the plague. Amen.

There is an unfortunately large and uninformed part of the country that just does not understand the vital role experts play in protecting us. They've watched far too much TV where, "The Government" is the magical bad guy in everything.

But by all means, let's just let anyone do whatever and then when everything keeps going downhill we can say we didn't bar anyone from anything among the ruins they all created.

@RBL

I haven’t made any claims that the current system is perfect, while you claim that licensing politicians (not just presidents) would be better.

I’m not interested in assigning you homework, but if you haven’t thought beyond the initial shell of an idea, that’s fine.

I shall give an example of why I consider licensing to be a poor idea: Wisconsin.

https://www.wpr.org/shows/mappedout/how-2011-political-district-map-changed-game-wisconsin

Wisconsin is a swing state, generally balanced between Democrat and Republican voters. In 2011 the Republicans gerrymandered the state election maps in order to hugely benefit them, and were in control of pretty much every branch of state of government since then as a result, even when there are huge swings toward in the national stage.

A few years ago they lost the governorship to a Democrat, and then during the interim between the election and Evers being sworn in, voted to take away some power from the governor because they are children and don’t want their opponents to wield any power when the Democratic will of the state gives them it.

This is something I would not like to see in any sort of licensing for politicians. Even non-partisan bodies are corrupted by politics (the judicial branch at national and state levels, for example) and thus I don’t consider any sort of licensing body will be immune from that, and will be co-opted by one party or another at some point to help themselves, harm their enemies, or both. I don’t think it would be possible to protect a licensing system from that, hence me asking you how you think it could.

See, this is at least a better opposition with examples. I understand you may have some concerns spelled out here. I think you can have guardrails. Yes, you list examples of abuse.

The judicial branches are better about it, but they have recently become worse with politicians and let's not forget who did that:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/01/13/how-trump-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/

The right wing held open the spots and wouldn't let them be filled until a Republican got in.

Anti corruption measures like record reviews, financial disclosures, strict limits on who gets money from where (if anywhere) and limiting or eliminating gifts are a thing.

I don't have a point by point for you, but the one thing people agree on is that our choices suck.

I'm not hearing any other ideas on how to improve things.


I don't know. If you don't like a licensing board with a test, then what do we do about

Politicians who spread blatantly false lies (Hurricane Steering MTG, Trump's everything but "Mexico will pay for the wall," Opposition to Vaccines during a pandemic, and just all the constant lies.

People who just believe these insane conspiracy theories and make everything worse/make help harder to get:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/10/13/federal-officials-nc-temporarily-relocated-amid-report-armed-militia-email-shows/

How else do you impose some sort of order on this mess with some kind of standards? No, it doesn't compromise democracy. You should have to be a doctor to run a health board making standards or have knowledge of one or something. The alternative is  completely unworkable and we're seeing that now. Why, why does someone get to be in charge of things just because they have a pulse? They can be dumb as a rock or somehow dumber and there's no problem with that? And somehow it is completely seen as nuts by some to have someone know what they are doing. Sure, let's let billy bob and it doesn't matter who be in charge. They haven't earned it in the slightest and will mess it all up but they want to be in charge. Meanwhile the people who could actually help, like that doctor who should be running the health board, just..?

[Grim Portent]

A licensing board in particular is a very impractical idea, but the same general idea of setting a qualification standard is quite workable.

Hell, the USA has a few already in the form of age limits. People under 35 can't run for the Presidency. Under 30s can't be senators. Under 25s can't be take seats in Congress.

Deciding what the minimum qualifications should be and who should adjudicate them is of course complicated, and I generally lean towards the idea that there probably shouldn't be any other than being able to read reasonably well, because they are inherently counter to the fundamental principles behind Universal Suffrage. But to say that they are inherently undemocratic is simply incorrect. Democracies are varied and loosely defined, and basically all of them have had some rules that prevent particular groups from running for goverment, either on the basis of identity, political alignment or religion.

I think Trumperica, where all politicians must be rubberstamped by Trump, would still count as a democracy, just not a very good one. It is in theory not all that different from a lot of constitutional monarchies, where the monarch in theory (usually not in practice anymore) can veto a member of their parliament getting their seat, and swearing allegiance to the monarch is mandatory. I doubt you would say the UK isn't democratic, and on paper King Charles can overrule the democrat process in a few ways.

How else do you impose some sort of order on this mess with some kind of standards? No, it doesn't compromise democracy. You should have to be a doctor to run a health board making standards or have knowledge of one or something. The alternative is  completely unworkable and we're seeing that now. Why, why does someone get to be in charge of things just because they have a pulse? They can be dumb as a rock or somehow dumber and there's no problem with that? And somehow it is completely seen as nuts by some to have someone know what they are doing. Sure, let's let billy bob and it doesn't matter who be in charge. They haven't earned it in the slightest and will mess it all up but they want to be in charge. Meanwhile the people who could actually help, like that doctor who should be running the health board, just..?

On the subject of doctors as health ministers. It is a bit of a mixed bag. On the one hand, doctors probably understand the health needs of the country better than most, on the other, doctors are not educated in how to draft and advocate for legislation. A lot of politicians in Western democracies have backgrounds in law or business, and are more suited to things like debate, negotiation and legislation. The current USA Secretary of Health for example.

The thing is the job of a politician in most democracies is not necessarily to rule or lead, it is to represent and advocate for the desires of their constituents. The way the process is supposed to work is that the politician asks their voters what they need with regards to healthcare, pass that on to a panel of medical experts who then say what they would need to satisfy the needs of the voters, the politician then drafts a policy based on that and starts trying to get it passed into law.

Same broadly applies to all government positions. You could have a general be the minister of defence, sure. It can work fine, but limits certain aspects of selection and accountability. Or you could elect a guy and tell him to listen to the military commanders while also prioritising the will of his constituents.

There's trade offs involved. I like some the ideas inherent to more Technocratic (rule of experts) systems, and generally think there should be some veto powers invested into regulatory bodies so they can stop politicians from doing stupid things,* but the actual politicians don't need to be good at the thing they are theoretically in charge of, they need to be good at being in charge of things and part of that is being willing to listen to actual experts.


*I'm from the UK, so I can point to the colossal waste of money and time that was the Rwanda deportation deal as an example of something I think should probably have been grounds for the automatic dismissal of some government ministers. Illegal by our own laws and they just kept trying to do it.

[Maximum Spin]

I think Trumperica, where all politicians must be rubberstamped by Trump, would still count as a democracy, just not a very good one. It is in theory not all that different from a lot of constitutional monarchies, where the monarch in theory (usually not in practice anymore) can veto a member of their parliament getting their seat, and swearing allegiance to the monarch is mandatory. I doubt you would say the UK isn't democratic, and on paper King Charles can overrule the democrat process in a few ways.

I would absolutely say that the UK is not democratic and I thought it would be universally obvious that no monarchy where the monarch has any even vestigial political powers is democratic.

With nothing better than personal definition preferences to go on, I'm fine with you choosing to count Trumperica is democratic, although I disagree, but it is still no democracy that I would ever want to live in.

BTW do you think that the American founders would consider the UK a democracy? Or the revolutionaries of France?

[MonkeyHead]

I think Trumperica, where all politicians must be rubberstamped by Trump, would still count as a democracy, just not a very good one. It is in theory not all that different from a lot of constitutional monarchies, where the monarch in theory (usually not in practice anymore) can veto a member of their parliament getting their seat, and swearing allegiance to the monarch is mandatory. I doubt you would say the UK isn't democratic, and on paper King Charles can overrule the democrat process in a few ways.

I would absolutely say that the UK is not democratic and I thought it would be universally obvious that no monarchy where the monarch has any even vestigial political powers is democratic.

With nothing better than personal definition preferences to go on, I'm fine with you choosing to count Trumperica is democratic, although I disagree, but it is still no democracy that I would ever want to live in.

BTW do you think that the American founders would consider the UK a democracy? Or the revolutionaries of France?

The UK is not democratic for so many reasons. An unelected upper house with life peers and the clergy. Wierdly inconsistent devolved powers to Wales, Scotland, and some urban mayors - yet all votes in parliament dominated by the English MP's. FPTP voting. Members-only voting for leaders who default to Prime Minister. Government by tradition/convention. Its more broken than the shitshow that is the USA.

Granted, as one of my only political beliefs is Welsh independence I am so not objective on this one.

[Grim Portent]

BTW do you think that the American founders would consider the UK a democracy? Or the revolutionaries of France?

I don't personally consider the system the American founders created a particularly good democracy, so their opinions matter little to me. They basically just created a new House of Lords which elected a king rather than having an inherited one. They even copied a lot of our shitty practices.

Not familiar with the various types of democracy the French tried. I think they mostly made the same mistakes America did, and they had recurring problems with their execution of democracy, one of those problems being the executions.


My general guidelines for a basic democracy are;

1) All taxpayers can vote for the legislative body.

2) Only the legislative body can alter the existing body of law.

That's more or less it. Doesn't matter if the executive is a king, president or a magic 8-ball, or if the judiciary is appointed, elected or once again a magic 8-ball. Hell, there doesn't even need to be an executive or judicial branch if the government has been structured without one.* Also doesn't need to be a second chamber.

One representative, elected by the taxpayers, non-advisory, legislative body is the sole requirement to count as a democracy. A direct democracy would count as well of course. As long as any other parts of the government can only advise that a piece of legislation should be amended or delayed, it is a democracy.

A country does not stop being a democracy when it has rules like 'felons can't hold office,' or it stops being a democracy when there are no candidates at all. A vote for different policies under a forever dictator is still a vote, and there are plenty of levels of Flawed Democracy between Pure Democracy and No Democracy.



For reference, the UK defines itself as a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarchy. It's a fairly common structure for the European countries that expanded the franchise without having to overthrow their monarchs first. All real power in the UK lies in the House of Commons and its Prime Minister, which serve as the legislative body and de facto executive. The House of Lords (mostly lifetime appointments given by the House of Commons, plus a few Anglican priests who have seats because of tradition) can delay and amend, and the King exists as a glorified rubber stamp.

In a way, I think our country might actually be a healthier democracy if the King actually used their powers from time to time, as is they aren't even allowed to voice support or opposition to anything relating to domestic politics. King Charles was an ecological activist when he was still prince, but now he isn't allowed to do that any more because of the tradition of the monarchs being servants to the Prime Ministers government, rather than a superior or even equal party. We basically don't have an executive branch equivalent because the monarch is so neutered.

The UK is not democratic for so many reasons. An unelected upper house with life peers and the clergy. Wierdly inconsistent devolved powers to Wales, Scotland, and some urban mayors - yet all votes in parliament dominated by the English MP's. FPTP voting. Members-only voting for leaders who default to Prime Minister. Government by tradition/convention. Its more broken than the shitshow that is the USA.

Granted, as one of my only political beliefs is Welsh independence I am so not objective on this one.

As a supporter of Scottish Independance,* I agree those are all things that make it a flawed democracy, but it still is a democracy. We vote for representatives, our laws are designed and passed by those representatives, the unelected parts of the system are subservient to the elected part, the power balance lying towards the English is just a matter of demography, so on and so forth.

We're a long way from being an oligarchy, autocracy, absolute monarchy, or other undemocratic system. We're just kind of a shit democracy. But then, so are quite a few democracies, because they were built on stupid compromises that have since calcified.

*I might be satisified with significant electoral reform. Something closer to straight proportional would be more to my taste, if not just straight proportional. Most of my issues with the UK come down to periods of mismanagement and the de facto two party system, which I think would be more easily gotten rid of in an independant Scotland.

[McTraveller]

Having "taxpayers" be the ones that can vote is objectively terrible.

The better ideal is the one that most people think of, which is "citizens of the nation, of the age of majority, should be the ones privileged to vote."

Basically, if you are being asked to be subject to the rules, and you commit to be a citizen (not just a tourist or resident alien), then you can vote.