Problem is, being elected requires advertisement for people to even know you exist. Why do you think politicians are so easily bribed by "campaign funds"?
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Even to be selected to run for election in an individual seat?
Keep Rolling OnYep. Politics is hard work. It's not an easy ride into big money and fame, it's a long process that requires dedication, determination, and the development of a wide selection of skills. It's a job.
There is no quick answer. There is no easy solution that will make everything change tomorrow. It's a long and arduous process, and one that will never be completed if no one ever tries. On the last page, Wolf 1066 said this.
Whose fault is that? Whose fault is it that nobody who actually desires to make the system better ever gets up off his seat and makes the effort to do so? If only the power-hungry and self-serving enter politics, then of course the only options are between the power-hungry and self-serving. If you want a new option, you have to make that option exist. If no one ever does, then the system remains as it is.
The system can only be changed from within the system.
edited 5th Mar '14 8:48:33 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.I think the problem is that you very often need resources to enter politics. Resources that the successful power-hungry and self-serving often have in higher quantities than you.
So, climbing, while not impossible, is harder than for them. They've got a head-start, you've got a handicap, so if they dedicate as much work on it as you do how do you win?
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."Successful businessmen, war heroes, political ladder-climbers, and other such folk don't spring fully-formed from the brow of George Bush. They all started somewhere, just like you are. No, you're probably not going to win an election tomorrow. That's why I said it's a long, arduous process and a lot of hard work.
Today's up-and-coming kid trying to get started in the world and facing the big, scary world of powerful and influential leaders is tomorrow's powerful and influential leader.
edited 5th Mar '14 9:02:19 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.And in the course of becoming that influential leader figure, the individual in question has to learn how to hide his true thoughts, how to appear to be what the person he's asking for money wants, how to lie convincingly and often. He learns that the world of politics is not about ideas and dreams, but about give-and-take, greased palms, and backroom deals. To build up enough support for national office, he has to create a network of favors owed and favors granted, and he has to show willingness to keep his promises to the people who support him. By the time he's anywhere near the White House, he's long since learned that idealism doesn't win elections.
That a politician could retain any vestige of sincere dedication to principle in such an environment is astonishing. Said slightly differently, the sheer portion of a politician's time that is taken up by all the political stuff leaves precious little for doing the things that he set out into politics to achieve in the first place.
Now, what makes things even more interesting is that all of this vetting and conditioning that occurs in the course of a political career may actually be a good thing. We have only to remember the chaos that resulted when a bunch of neophyte politicians with little or no national experience got voted into office in 2010 and afterwards. Remember them? The Tea Party? Many would call them idealistic and "uncorrupted" by Washington. Look where that got us.
A government filled with uncompromising idealists is pretty lousy at actually accomplishing anything.
edited 5th Mar '14 9:31:46 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Nobody but a corrupt, power-hungry, self-serving person would be acceptible to those who select those who're offered up as a "choice" of leader.
Anyone under the illusion that politics is about anything more than the powerful protecting their own interests and keeping everyone else in their place is living in a dream-world.
The people we "vote for" are all people that have been carefully vetted by corporate interests, powerful lobbyists, old money etc to ensure they're not some maverick that's going to say "Hey, how about we give the little guy a chance?"
This is why you don't get politicians in a "democracy" advocating heavy taxation of the rich, redistribution of wealth or freedom for the people.
Instead you get those who toe the line when it comes to imposing laws that better control the people (like the US Patriot Act and the inexorable move towards disarming the US people, laws that empower corporations and reduce worker's rights).
And the reason why they do this is: they're usually from the rich and powerful sector of society to begin with and it's in their personal best interests to do so.
Those rare ones who aren't, only get anywhere if they have the right-coloured tongue - achieved by insertion into the appropriate arses.
Washington et al. didn't "free the colonies to get rid of the taxes imposed by King George and topple those who had made their fortune in the Americas", they took action to ensure that the taxes came to them instead and that those who made their fortune in the Americas retained their wealth.
And from then until today, Presidency has been about protecting the powerful from the poor.
And what would you suggest would be a better system then?
Wolf, there is a limit to what we will tolerate in terms of rhetoric, even when aimed at public figures. Moderate yourself, please, lest we do it for you.
edited 5th Mar '14 11:40:57 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Apologies, Fighteer, and thanks for the warning.
How about instead of a four-yearly Party/Presidential election, have a four-yearly referendum on whether to accept or reject proposed laws mooted by the various parties?
"Do you want your government to be able to spy on you anytime you want in the interests of National Security - Y/N?"
Of course, the parties would have to be bound to act on the results of those referenda.
Then, if you have a law, it's because the actual majority of people have decided that they want that law.
As things stand, most countries have sufficient laws to function perfectly well - you're not allowed to murder/steal etc and there are punishments in place for those who do, there are speed limits, building regulations, anti-discrimination laws etc, mechanisms by which fiscal matters are handled and so forth.
Frankly, every single politician could explode into dust tomorrow and the countries would just continue functioning quite happily without them.
So all countries really need is a mechanism by which potential new laws are identified based on important issues that have come to the fore and then those laws are put to general population vote: should there be an Act that enables domestic spying? Should gays be allowed to marry? Should there be a guaranteed minimum wage? What level should it be? and so on.
Let the actual public decide.
edited 5th Mar '14 12:35:25 PM by Wolf1066
You're talking about, in effect, direct democracy. That's only efficient (for certain definitions of the term) on a small scale, and all you're doing really is shifting the burden of decision making from (supposedly) educated, experienced lawmakers onto ignorant, easily misinformed voters.
Besides, how in the world would you get anything done in the four years between votes? Unless what you mean is that we let the business of government go on as normal, but then have direct referendums on everything they've done over that period. Do you know how many bills pass in four years? Who's going to spend the time to review a fifty-page ballot?
Edit: Also, this is not on topic. If this thread has any purpose, it's to answer the very specific question raised in the title. If the answer is, "Because people feel they have no say in government and want someone to blame," then that's valid. But going onto a long digression about methods of governing is not.
edited 5th Mar '14 12:36:11 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yes, business as usual in the intervening time.
Perhaps Yes/No/Dunno on the form?
And yes, it's off topic, sorry.
To get back on topic:
When there's only two choices, people cannot help but think they have no real choice of government and blaming the incumbent is the only option they have. Chances are, the majority wouldn't have voted for that person if there were an "acceptable alternative".
People tend to vote for the "Lesser Evil" when given only a choice of two candidates - but they'll still view it as an "Evil", a villain.
edited 5th Mar '14 12:43:04 PM by Wolf1066
Do you guys not select your own candidates? I helped select my local candidates for MP and MEP, I even got to vote for party leader.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ CyranWell of course that's what's gonna happen. The position in general requires an ambition to stomp over everyone,find the sweet spot of words to make for a bread and circus, and be a good liar.
And now with every president since Mc Kinley that isn't Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter, violently suppress any developing nation by installing puppet dictators in the name of protecting big business interests...without remorse. And going to war at any time there isn't a complete cooperation.
Or basically not allow democracy or the freedoms espoused on striving nations unless convenient.
Not that any President with a sane foreign policy would have a chance or even an actual populist that's entirely transparent. Or that any president that actually tries to be hands-on and honest would be considered unacceptable and "weak".
And then of course there's ideological disagreement because your guy didn't win.
Finally campaigns by nature are all about destroying the other guy.
It makes sense to see 'em that way.
Luminous beings are we, not this crude matterOnly to a limited extent. We have "primaries" where various people inside the political party declare their candidacy and then do their best to destroy each other via smear tactics and obfuscation until people registered as a member of that political party get to vote to see which of them has had the fewest gaffes and the least amount of mud sticking to them. Then the parties take their winning member and pit them against each other by raising the rhetoric by a factor of ten and maintaining it non-stop for several months. The winner of that is President.
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - SilaswJust to clarify, the Party has no role in the selection of those that stand in the Primary?
Keep Rolling OnOf course it does. If by that you mean "the will of the primary voters who are, traditionally, registered members of the party."
edited 5th Mar '14 2:09:33 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"No. I mean before the Primary even takes place, the Partynote interviews potential Candidates, performs background checks, perhaps pushes for a particular type of shortlist...
edited 5th Mar '14 2:11:58 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnIt's not really that organized, at least not publicly. While the party leadership definitely has a say in who runs and no doubt exerts a lot of influence behind the scenes, from a national point of view it is mainly a matter of individual, personal decisions. A candidate announces that they are running (or that they might be running, or that they are not running so stop pestering them) and the media descends on them like a pack of wolves.
If the last few sets of Republican primaries are any indication, on that side of the party line it's something of a wild free-for-all, with the Republican National Committee throwing its weight behind whichever candidate it finds least objectionable, but by no means having any kind of definitive say in the matter.
edited 5th Mar '14 2:43:08 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Party leadership is usually not quite that organized. They usually weed the most insane out of the primaries, and they have some influence on steering fundraising towards whichever candidates seem most likely to win.
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - SilaswBut then how does it make sense that you don't chose your politicians? Unless you're saying that everyone who is a paid up member of a political party is bad then you've got good honest people right there. If people are so annoyed at the quality of the guys running then get to know your local party members, odds are one of them is a good person, get them to run in the primary, tell your friends that he (or she) is a good guy and get them to tell their friends.
Though this could be a scale thing, I'm used to UK sized constituencies, where most of the low level activists will know the candidate personally (for example I'm a pretty low level activist and I know the leader of our party for the local council, our MEP an our candidate for MP).
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ CyranThat works for local elections and it could work for a specific district but trying that on a senate or presidential level is incredibly impractical. There are so many people to talk to that you need to get advertising to reach enough people. That requires money no matter what you do.
The only fix I can think of would be mandating that every candidate have a certain amount of money they can spend on elections.
edited 5th Mar '14 2:51:00 PM by Kostya
Which nobody would allow because reasons.
Oh really when?A good way to get that advertising is to build up to it. You're not going to be able to go from barber to President on the next election, but you might go from barber to mayor or state senator. From there, you have a foot in the door to start impressing people. Get involved with events, put your name out there, get people talking, and you might just have a shot at the next rung on the ladder. Politics is a career. People rarely get to jump right into a plush corner office for their first job.
Military service also helps, and a solid performance in the military can open a lot of doors for a political career. Ditto a college education in the right fields.
edited 5th Mar '14 2:54:14 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.
You can, actually. Unfortunately, if you want Bill to win, you need to get more people voting for him too, because you are not the only person who matters in a democracy; the election is decided based on the whims of the majority.
If one person could decide, "Bill should be president," and Bill became president based on that one person's decision, it would not be a democracy at all.
If it seems like only bastards get into office, then the question that needs to be asked is, why do we keep voting for bastards? That's the problem that needs to be corrected. In democracy, the sins of the leadership rest on the shoulders of the people who put that leader there in the first place, and the only way to fix it rests on the people.
I'm curious, though: you seem pretty determinedly opposed to the entire principle of democracy. What system would you propose in its place?
edited 5th Mar '14 7:50:51 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.