Comments on: Independents with a Process

By: kranky kritter

kranky kritter — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:21:55 +0000

I think the questionnaire is dumb. I would specifically want a candidate who had a more sophisticated understanding than pro-this or anti-that.

And I think that term limits, while well-intentioned, do not have real efficacy.

We need candidates with substance that goes beyond the sort of simple symbolism this site seems to be seeking.

By: Mike A.

Mike A. — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:47:09 +0000

I think Todd hit the nail. Integrity is missing in the process. In fact, in many areas of our nation, integrity seems to be elusive – whether it’s politics, business, education, etc.

The idea is interesting…let’s see how it plays.

By: Frank Hagan

Frank Hagan — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 05:58:28 +0000

Good points, Todd. I think the process will break down with “non partisan fighting” because of human nature. And in a way, the iron clad promise to self-enforced term limits means the person might do what the heck he wants anyway … kind of “senioritis” or the “last week on the job” syndrome kicking in for the last term.

Term limits are a kind of gimmick, in my view. They certainly haven’t helped us here in California; the lobbyists are the most experienced guys in town now, and they have basically taken over the state.

Still, its nice to see a plan that goes beyond “kick the bums out!” With some modifications it could be viable in some districts, and I’m all for more competition if it means more people get involved in the process.

By: Todd

Todd — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 04:28:18 +0000

Love the general idea … representatives should beholden to their districts first and foremost.

The devil is in the details though.

Not at all a fan of their proposed implementation; especially the questionnaire.

The questions are very black & white (even simplistic), with no gray area room for interpretation. And even worse, the candidates are Bound to vote based on how they answer these questions.

This is Not a good idea at all.

One of the things sorely lacking in today’s political environment is compromise, based on good faith negotiations.

If every legislator is already committed to vote in a certain way, no matter what, how in the world will ANY bills be passed ???

I don’t want my representatives to have to agree with me 100% of the time. All I want is someone who is honest, and will give me a straight answer about why they voted a certain way … even if I might not agree, or even like it.

Back to the questionnaire … seriously go have a read in their forum … many of those proposed questions are almost as ridiculous as the recent “purity tests” that the RNC wants to impose on it’s candidates.

We don’t need more “purity” in politics … we need more integrity.

… and people with integrity DO sometimes change their minds as they gain additional insight and information.

I personally don’t find anything at all wrong with that.

So basically …

Keep the silly questionnaires if you must, but ditch the “obligation” to vote based on a simple “for” or “against” answer, and this might just be an interesting idea.

My two pennies,
Todd