Academic Antics
Comment
Duane Benson
Personally, I've always thought that a little incompetence in government is a ...
shikantaza
I like the idea of a starting date for campaigning. People currently in office ...
Changing the political system
Brian Bailey
11/1/2012 3:28 PM EDT
Less than a week to go until elections here in the U.S. and I know that I for one will be so glad to see all of the political campaigns and adds gone. I was just watching the news while having my lunch today and I noticed that every add spot was political and most for candidates. Also, every one of the adds talked about what would happen if the other person got elected – they did not mention a single thing about what they would do. It is clearly easier to attack your opponent than to win favor with the electorate and if you never actually say anything, your opponents have less to attack you with. What a mess of negativity!
We all finish up having no useful information with which to make a decision apart from the generalities of what the parties stand for.
So, if I were in charge of elections I would make one change – All adds must be about yourself and not mention opponents or opposition parties.
What changes would you make?
Brian Bailey – keeping you covered
If you found this article to be of interest, visit EDA Designline where you will find the latest and greatest design, technology, product, and news articles with regard to all aspects of Electronic Design Automation (EDA).
Also, you can obtain a highlights update delivered directly to your inbox by signing up for the EDA Designline weekly newsletter – just Click Here to request this newsletter using the Manage Newsletters tab (if you aren't already a member you'll be asked to register, but it's free and painless so don't let that stop you).
|
|
|
|
|
EREBUS
11/1/2012 3:44 PM EDT
I would limit campaigning to a thirty day period and make it illegal to badger the public with phone calls.
I have been getting 4 or 5 calls a day. This is rediculus. I already voted and they still call.
Political parties should not be exempt from the do not call list.
Just my opinion.
Sign in to Reply
BrianBailey
11/1/2012 7:12 PM EDT
I love it when they call me and tell them I don't care what they tell me I will not vote for them - because I cant. When they change that I will listen. Taxation without representation is alive and well!
Sign in to Reply
David Ashton
11/1/2012 10:24 PM EDT
@ Brian - "what changes would you make?"
Get engineers (who CAN do stuff) to run the place rather than lawyers and other parasites who seem unable to DO anything......
(And to forestall any criticism - "The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism byt those who do not have it" - George Bernard Shaw, Playwright and Author)
Sign in to Reply
BrianBailey
11/2/2012 10:22 AM EDT
Are you telling me that you plan to run for election David?
Sign in to Reply
David Ashton
11/7/2012 6:21 PM EST
Naaah...it's tough enough getting electronics to do what I want....an electorate would be much worse (even though they start the same... :-)
Others have pointed out other reasons below - and as Erebus says, "Good Luck..."
Sign in to Reply
shikantaza
11/8/2012 2:37 PM EST
NO ENGINEERS for president. Herbert Hoover was an engineer: ran the economy straight to the toilet. Jimmy Carter was an engineer. He is a Good Man, but was a terrible president.
Sign in to Reply
EREBUS
11/4/2012 4:17 PM EST
David brings up a good point. If we engineers can do better, then why do we not run for office?
You cannot change Washington by just complaining.
Unfortunately, you still have to convince the remaining idiots to vote for you.
Good luck.
Sign in to Reply
ljp93105
11/5/2012 1:27 PM EST
Why do engineers not run for office? Because we can look ahead and see how unpleasant it is. The cost of a congressional campaign is now about three times the total salary received while in office. In other words, only corrupt people can win. If you figure out a way to fix that without severely rewriting the "free speech" provisions of the constitution, let me know.
Sign in to Reply
IDontUseTheForumSoWhyAmIForcedToMakeANickname
11/5/2012 12:34 PM EST
I would change the accountabilty of the participants. In particular, the Supreme Court has ruled that candidates are not legally liable to perform on any promises they make during the campaigning. In other words, the court allows them to lie to win your vote. Since we elect the candidates based on these promises, it doesn't give me much faith in the entire system.
Sign in to Reply
David Ashton
11/7/2012 6:23 PM EST
ButYouDoUseTheForumSoWhyNotPickABetterName?
Sign in to Reply
shikantaza
11/8/2012 2:43 PM EST
I like the idea of a starting date for campaigning. People currently in office have too much to do these days, and the public does get a tad weary.
I'd also align the primaries so that smaller states could go early to weed out the real flakes and dangerous loonies. As a SoCal boy, I say we keep New Hampshire to go first, just to hold with a small tradition.
So, start in March. First primaries in May. Conventions in August. Vote in November. 8 months. Sounds like plenty o' time to me.
Or, we could do it with physical contests, as in Gulliver's Travels....
Sign in to Reply
Duane Benson
11/30/2012 1:34 AM EST
Personally, I've always thought that a little incompetence in government is a good thing. Too much is bad, but really efficient and competent governments will destroy civil rights.
On balance the mass of government just wants to do their job and there are enough of them that want to do good to balance out the corrupt portions of it. That's why it more or less works here.
The US was founded, in part, with the assumption that government is inherently flawed. That any government left to its own devices will likely end up oppressing it people. Our founders understood that government is necessary, but it needs inefficiency and oversight to keep it in check.
Splitting power between the president, congress and the Supreme court, and then down into the states, is incredibly inefficient. Congress is even split in two. How many people and groups must agree to get anything done? A lot. It would be much, much more efficient to just have one person that can make all of the decisions without debate. That would be efficient, but horrible (think Stalin).
Yes, our government is mired in mud most of the time, but that's an important aspect of the US government. It's supposed to be sluggish and inefficient.
Sign in to Reply