jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (20 posts)

How Can We Elect Better People?

  1. qodrn profile image59
    qodrnposted 6 years ago

    How can we elect representatives that don't have to resign for some crime?  What are we doing wrong?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image76
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Elect Ron Paul.

      But if you want a more encompassing system, use the Free-market, instead of democracy.

      If you let someone have control of a monopoly (government has the following monopolies: Law creation, law enforcement, military, court system), you can only expect criminals to seek office. ... or, at least people who realize that there's more money in accepting bribes than there is in being a producer.

      If you follow the Free-market, each and every producer is the king. You decide if you want to give money to each business. You can easily choose to not give money to anyone with ease - if you want a blue striped tie, but they only have solid blue ties, then you don't have to give them money.  The cronies and losers are punished, the respectable and dedicated are rewarded.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        And Santa Claus will ride in on his unicorn...

        Praise Jesus!!

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image76
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I know that you don't believe in "logic", but how can you support a system that requires us to vote on 500 people that have a militaristic-monopoly on legislation, law enforcement, and the court system.

          If you ACTUALLY expect that system to attract the pure-hearted, then I must demand that you are the one hoping for unicorns.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image76
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Update: Now we have 12 people -- ONLY TWELVE PEOPLE -- deciding how to reduce the deficit by 2 trillion over the next 10 years.

    2. SoleiMarie profile image54
      SoleiMarieposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      if there are better people running for a position. you could never elect someone who's not there.

  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    You can't in the US. On the national level you have to vote for one of two criminals, a Republican or a Democrat. There is only one of anything else which is Bernie Sanders, the lone
    socialist. You can vote for third party candidates, but the system is set up so that they will almost never win, the one exception
    Bernie Sanders.

  3. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    It's willful(chosen) ignorance on behalf of the citizens. Most refuse to bother to do what is right on behalf of the Nation and cannot understand why things are not getting better.

    Their choice is selfish based and not truly was is in the best interest of society. Therefore, many people continue to vote for the "lessor of two evils", which constantly puts evil into office, regardless of the outcome.

    The affects and effects on other people's life is becoming more damaging, and will continue to do so, until the total collapse of America as a Nation happens.

    Is there a solution? Yes, to put a buffer between Government and Citizens, one which isn't politically push or religiously motivated.

  4. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 6 years ago

    Pass a law that states a person must at least be able to pass the test they give immigrants who desire to become US citizens before they can vote.

    No successful company in the world allows the janitors and part time workers to select the management team for the company. That is basically what we do with our present election process.

    I believe that a person should be able to exhibit some measure of intelligence considering the importance of the decision they are being asked to make.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      To require some kind of intelligence on the matter would eliminate over half the population.  We all know that there isn't a liberal in the country that has any sense at all about how to run the country - just ask any Republican!

      So who measures the ability of the unwashed masses to vote appropriately?

  5. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    I have an offer you can't refuse.

  6. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 6 years ago

    The first thing you have to do in order to get a better selection of candidates is change the election process.  Big money owns the elections.  There are many qualified people out there that can't stand up to that type of firepower.

    The American people are more intelligent than you are giving them credit for, but advertising will sway people's opinions.  Again, big corporate money funds the advertising.

    We have to put caps on spending for elections so more people can feel it possible to run in the primaries and we have to find a way to push corporate interests back and out of the process so that the candidates won't have to be in their back pockets.

    Your elected officials were bought well before you even knew they were running.

  7. Jonathan Janco profile image67
    Jonathan Jancoposted 6 years ago

    Expecting gov't to fix itself is asking too much. And pretending there is a free market is just another self-made delusion. The most successful businesses in this country are the main reason we have lobbying in the first place. Democracy is simply the rule of popular will. The popular will nowadays is to expect one power structure or another to take care of things. They do not. They take care of themselves. The citizenry  does not insist on having their voice heard, therefore it is not heard.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image76
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      indeed, we need more free-market and less government -- if you create a system of monopoly, it will attract the demon-spawn of society.

  8. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "indeed, we need more free-market" You mean like more free-market Wall Street that busted
    the country?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image76
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Ye be not acquainted with my good friend "the Federal Reserve" and the "Austrian Business Cycle Theory", are you?

      The boom and bust that you speak of were a direct result of government action (and the Federal Reserve, which is private, but is very closely watched by washington and was created by Congress artificially) in the marketplace. If you're interested in the theory and having your world turned upside-down, you can check out these sites.


      Interest rates play a vital role in the economy. They coordinate resource consumption over time.

      If you choose to save money, you lower the interest rate & reduce your consumption of resources & you are planning to spend more later.

      If you choose to spend money, you raise interest rates AND increase consumption & are less likely to spend money in the future.

      If the central bank lowers the interest rate artificially, then it looks like the resource pool of a society is greater than it is. There is increased consumption of the same number of goods and people won't buy as much in the future.

      Thus, you have people building projects which cost more down the road, and who won't get rewarded for their work.

      Things will look rosy for a year or two as the new money gets spent like mad, but then things will crash as the projects become too expensive and are not rewarded.

      A boom followed by a bust.

      *side note: interest rates have been at 0% for about 2+years now. However, many banks aren't lending money. This will change eventually. When the banks begin to spend, the recession will end... for a few years, and then another, worse, bust will hit us.

  9. svencill profile image60
    svencillposted 6 years ago

    People need to do their research. That's all it takes. If they just knew what was really going on instead of listening to the media we would be in better shape.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image76
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I disagree - we can't expect holy angels to run for office. Our federal government is a monopolistic agency of absolute power.

      It's impossible to expect good men and women to run for office. Good people don't usually seek the power to control others.

      We need a new system.

  10. Charles James profile image80
    Charles Jamesposted 6 years ago

    Warren Buffet for President!

    From nothing he built up a huge business empire pretty ethically. He would probably serve for $10 a yesr, setting an example.
    And he writes well, too - read his letters to shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway

  11. profile image48
    Orange County SEOposted 6 years ago

    he speaker’s answer seemed to follow this logic: If you know what the Constitution says, when you call or write the public servants, you will be able to point out to them that you know that almost all of the legislation they are voting on is unconstitutional.