h a l f b a k e r yYeah, I wish it made more sense too.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
its just a bass in the ocean after all. |
|
| |
When someone is elected, they are, basically, being elected to cast votes in session, no? If you remove their ability to vote then what is the point? What is it they would do if they could not vote? |
|
| |
A senator, addressing another senator: "Mr. Senator, the law you have proposed is excellent but, as we cannot vote it into law--because we cannot vote due the WJT rule--your bringing it to our attention is very frustrating to the members and I ask that you refrain from such actions in the future." |
|
| |
Now, if I could only get every single other person in the country to run for president, then I'd be a shoe-in.. |
|
| |
Because if there's one thing that gets in the way of democracy, it's the voting. |
|
| |
When you are in the government , your not running .
Or are you ? ( to stay politically alive and not get a solid document thrust through your back ).
Voting for a politician is one side of the game , being the politician is the other . Why should the politician play both sides of the game . |
|
| |
Now kiddies, running while voting is dangerous. You'll have someone's eye out. |
|
| |
There isn't really any advantage either way. I doubt anyone has ever won with a majority of 1 in a big election. |
|
| |
If a politician is too lazy to vote, he's obviously not worth voting into office. After all, not voting is a fairly good indication (most of the time) that you are not concerned with the issues facing a country. |
|
| |
And it's not necessarily self-promotion. Although I generally don't vote for my own ideas, a lot of people here do; there's nothing wrong with that. It just shows they think the idea is worth voting for. |
|
| |
// Why should the politician play both sides of the game // |
|
| |
Why shouldn't they? Seems fair to me. What is it about running for an office that suggests the candidate should be allowed no say in the matter? Why does jumping into the race demand giving up the right to vote? You haven't answered this question at all, and it's at the heart of your idea. |
|
| |
I like that [wjt] hasn't voted for this idea (unless s/he voted against it). Which brings up a point: would you allow people to vote against themselves? Can they vote in other elections or propositions? Can they vote for say city elections if they are a national politician? Or are they on the voting side of that game? And most importantly, why? Who cares? |
|
| |
<Brewster's Millions>"Don't vote for me! Vote for 'None of the above!'" |
|
| |
Something interesting may come out of this yet. If a person was required to not vote for themself, but to pick another candidate, would the most-qualified, or simply the most-connected come out on top, inside that small voting loop? |
|
| |
My idea is because of the moral thing .
A polictician is following a system where the right is for people to choose him or her . The polictician is giving up this voting right to let the people select their 'representitative' . At the moment the politicians can have their croissant and eat it too , not politicians I want in government .
In the animated picture media , the runners in school elections always left the room . |
|
| |
Why doesn't the candidate have the right to vote for his representative too? You still haven't answered the question. |
|
| |
because they are a candidate not a voter .
There should be no blur in the rules .
Also politicians can then get to feel / experience life as the other section of society that is not allowed to vote and go into government with new insight to make a better future . |
|
| |
I'm missing some of your logic, [wjt]. |
|
| |
//because they are a candidate not a voter//
No, currently they are a candidate and a voter. Why are you changing this? |
|
| |
//the other section of society that is not allowed to vote//
Childeren and non-citizens? Certainly there are much more significant experiences that politicians could have that would help them understand these groups than not voting. |
|
| |
The idea is more emotional logic than real solid logic .
The politicians right from start are seeming to get more than the people .
Aren't prisoners , the mental ill blocked from voting ?
Also heaven knows what reaction the politicians will have , when they are told they can't have something . |
|
| |
I saying politicians should NOT vote for themselves when standing
- an understanding of the disallowed may produce better politicians |
|
| |
This doesn’t make any sense at all. If you want candidates to understand what it’s like to be a criminal or mentally ill then they should be required to spend some time in a prison or mental hospital. |
|
| |
Any understanding , no matter where the knowledge comes from must make a better person . The moral upstanding thing to do , even if by belief alone is to not to use the vote because you are a candidate not a voter . The pure choice is therefore given to the people alone . |
|
| |
Right... because the candidate is not a person, apparently. |
|
| |
But they are a candidate _and_ a voter. Only if you took away their voting rights would they become //a candidate not a voter//. Even if this helps them understand prisoners and the insane (which I argue that it in no way does), wouldn't you rather they understand the voters? |
|
| |
If you are told you can't have something , and can see no logical reason for this , It's either going to make you a better person , crimminal or insane .
a person is a person irrelavant to the label of voter and/or candidate . |
|
| |
You can't have my croissant. Does that really make you a better person? |
|
| |
So why don’t we just take away all of a candidate’s constitutional rights? |
|
| |
I find it hard to believe that there has been a public election anywhere that has been swayed by the winning candidate voting for themself (you would, after all, also need the losing candidate to have forgotten to vote for themself). |
|
| |
Shirley this idea is based on the premise that all candidates would always vote for themselves? In a secret ballot, is this a valid assumption on which to base legislation? |
|
| |
And candidates voting for themselves is possibly the smallest act of self-promotion involved in running a campaign. |
|
| |
I don't think the author is suggesting that the election results are the concern here. He seems to be concerned with ridding the world of the evil that occurs when candidates do what every else does in an election. |
|
| |
We could just rid the world of politicians, and save the grief... |
|
| |
All this fuss over one silly little vote? It doesn't matter
anyway, because now that the Republicans may be able
to program the new electronic voting machines, on the
fly, during an election, with no possible way to audit the
system, we will have only Republican Presidents (and
other offices that matter) from now on. |
|
| |
I have come up with a reason. |
|
| |
The candidate has already had two special votes allowed to
them, why a third. The nomination vote and the seconding vote are
what I refer to. Those two 'special' people of the public seem to get
to vote twice. In a way the Nominator and Seconder have already
voted. |
|
| |
If you are nominating yourself, you have used up your vote that's
fair. |
|
| |
I'm sure you'll say nomination and seconding isn't voting but in a
way it is a form of selection endorsement of the candidate, a vote . |
|
| |
My sister once insisted that Margaret Thatcher was
constitutionally obliged to vote Labour, and James Callaghan
for the Conservative Party. |
|
| |
Callaghan, I suppose , wouldn't be constitutionally but
rather backroom subconscious pressure. |
|
| |
//your running//? Should be "you're", as in you're
posting an idea with Trump-speak grammar. |
|
| |