Quote: Original post by ManaStone
How would you feel about a guardianship branch of government that would have the power to conduct mandatory interviews of candidates for office and politicians already in office? This branch would also have the power to create a general questionnaire on political positions that each candidate would have to fill out in order to run for any office. This branch would be elected by proportional representation through a single transferable vote.

Does this sound like something you'd want in government?

No, because of the parts in bold. And I'm not even going to ask quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

Sounds like a waste of tax payer money to me. I'm extremely against wasteful spending by governments. Also if you pay attention politicians usually say a lot, but only a little bit of it appears in the media. Forcing them to fill out questionnaires is kind of pointless. You could probably get most of the information you want by creating a database and fill out questions and just ask people online to provide source information for how every candidate and politician feels about the topics. I assume after a while you'd end up with a very large concrete database of information and sources such that anyone that wants to know what a politician thinks could use it to query for the politician's standing. This doesn't require wasteful spending either.

(you know I just said how much I hated political threads in another thread. Stop making me a hypocrite! :P )

Quote: Original post by superpig

Quote: Original post by ManaStone
How would you feel about a guardianship branch of government that would have the power to conduct mandatory interviews of candidates for office and politicians already in office? This branch would also have the power to create a general questionnaire on political positions that each candidate would have to fill out in order to run for any office. This branch would be elected by proportional representation through a single transferable vote.

Does this sound like something you'd want in government?

No, because of the parts in bold. And I'm not even going to ask quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

Could you elaborate a bit more? What is wrong with mandatory interviews? Don't you think politicians shouldn't have to be confronted on their bullshit? Do you remember Meet the Press emails to Mark Sanford? Do you think that kind of stuff doesn't happen all of the time?

Also, why wouldn't you want proportional representation for electing officials to this branch? If a branch like this were established, then wouldn't you want a variety of people to be represented? Wouldn't you want somebody who knows the science behind global warming to be able to grill senators like James Inhofer on their dishonesty?

I doubt that there is any situation that can't be remedied with a simple fix during the implementation.

If we get a Howard Stern type person who asks inappropriate questions elected to this branch, we can give congress the power to remove somebody from this office with 3/5's or 2/3's consensus.

If one of the members wants to put a loaded question on the questionnaire, we can add a rule saying that each question must be approved by majority or super majority of the branch.

If one of the members is being an idiot or asking ridiculous loaded questions, then the politician should have the ability to take him to task for it and expose the interviewer as an idiot. If not, different members in this branch would be able to interview each other and expose each other for being dishonest pricks.

In the U.S., the constitution would prevent religious questions from being asked on the questionnaire.

It isn't like this branch is going to have obscene, unchecked powers.

Quote: Original post by Sirisian
Sounds like a waste of tax payer money to me. I'm extremely against wasteful spending by governments. Also if you pay attention politicians usually say a lot, but only a little bit of it appears in the media. Forcing them to fill out questionnaires is kind of pointless. You could probably get most of the information you want by creating a database and fill out questions and just ask people online to provide source information for how every candidate and politician feels about the topics. I assume after a while you'd end up with a very large concrete database of information and sources such that anyone that wants to know what a politician thinks could use it to query for the politician's standing. This doesn't require wasteful spending either.

(you know I just said how much I hated political threads in another thread. Stop making me a hypocrite! :P )

It shouldn't cost too much to implement. On the federal level, I'm not sure that we'd need more than 14 representatives to this branch plus people for technical support and server space for the interview videos. The biggest expense would probably be the elections.

A branch of government to replace what people should already be doing (researching candidates, not voting for asshats, etc)?

I like the vow of poverty idea. Not just no pay, but you are relegated to taking public transit and living in government housing for the rest of your life. That way if someone sees you in a fancy car, they know you are taking bribes.

Adding a guardianship branch would just give us one more corrupt branch of government. We have plenty already.

The vow of poverty is kind of intriguing.
I think it would be problematic to implement this forcefully, but I think it would wonderful if we demanded this on a social level from them. But if a politician were to take such a vow voluntarily (and was able to demonstrate it) they'd get my vote.

Quote: Original post by ManaStone
What is wrong with mandatory interviews?

They're counter to liberty. You're forcing people to do something they don't want to do.

Quote: Don't you think politicians shouldn't have to be confronted on their bullshit?

No, I don't think they should have to be confronted. However, I won't vote for politicians who I think are full of bullshit. Being confronted on that is a good way for a politician to persuade me they aren't full of bullshit. So, it's in their interest to be confronted because it'll get me to vote for them.

Quote:
Do you remember Meet the Press emails to Mark Sanford? Do you think that kind of stuff doesn't happen all of the time?

Of course it does. Do you know how the release of those emails affected Meet the Press's viewership figures?

Quote: Also, why wouldn't you want proportional representation for electing officials to this branch?

Proportional representation is very bad because it means nobody has clear responsibility. If a group were proportionally elected, and then the group screws up, how do you know who not to vote for next time?

It's impossible to know for sure that a system is ever perfect, so the most important property of a system is its ability to identify and correct mistakes within it.

Quote: Wouldn't you want somebody who knows the science behind global warming to be able to grill senators like James Inhofer on their dishonesty?

Sure. I'd rather than the people who know the science behind global warming did a better job of training the public to recognise that James Inhofer is dishonest, though.

Quote: I doubt that there is any situation that can't be remedied with a simple fix during the implementation.

What's the potential for harm if you're wrong about that?

Quote: If we get a Howard Stern type person who asks inappropriate questions elected to this branch, we can give congress the power to remove somebody from this office with 3/5's or 2/3's consensus.

Wait, you want to give the politicians - who, you've given as a premise, are full of bullshit - the power to remove people they don't like? Specifically, to remove people who are responsible for exposing their corruption and bullshit?

Don't you think there's a problem with that?

Quote: If one of the members wants to put a loaded question on the questionnaire, we can add a rule saying that each question must be approved by majority or super majority of the branch.

It's not clear what is and isn't "loaded," so you'd have to have all the questions approved by majority to be on the safe side. That takes a long time, so followup questions can't be performed.

Quote: In the U.S., the constitution would prevent religious questions from being asked on the questionnaire.

Isn't that very bad? Many voters want to know the answers to religious questions. News networks don't have this limitation.

Quote: It isn't like this branch is going to have obscene, unchecked powers.

If it has the power to arrest people who don't show up for interview, that's obscene. If it doesn't, how will it enforce its mandatory requirements?

Quote: Original post by superpig
They're counter to liberty. You're forcing people to do something they don't want to do.

It would just be a job requirement for office. I don't know the election laws in the U.K., but in the U.S. elected officials might have to be forced to report gifts from lobbyists valued over a certain amount. In order to get on the ballot candidates are forced to get a certain amount of signatures. Do you think any of those requirements infringe on liberty?

Quote:
No, I don't think they should have to be confronted. However, I won't vote for politicians who I think are full of bullshit. Being confronted on that is a good way for a politician to persuade me they aren't full of bullshit. So, it's in their interest to be confronted because it'll get me to vote for them.

I don't think most people keep track of who is ducking interviews. Also, there are good reasons in the current environment in which a candidate might not want to give an interview. An interviewer can do editing to make the interviewee to look bad or the interviewee might not be given appropriate time to elaborate on his position. When the host is losing his argument he can yell over, filibuster, and and straw-man until time is out and the interviewee doesn't have a chance to respond. This happens quiet a bit on Fox News.

Quote:
Proportional representation is very bad because it means nobody has clear responsibility. If a group were proportionally elected, and then the group screws up, how do you know who not to vote for next time?

It's impossible to know for sure that a system is ever perfect, so the most important property of a system is its ability to identify and correct mistakes within it.

I'm not talking about a closed party list. I'm talking about using a single transferable vote in which a voter ranks individuals. It would be similar to Australia's system for electing members to the senate.

Quote:
What's the potential for harm if you're wrong about that?

Candidates and elected officials would have to give uncomfortable interviews.

Quote:
Wait, you want to give the politicians - who, you've given as a premise, are full of bullshit - the power to remove people they don't like? Specifically, to remove people who are responsible for exposing their corruption and bullshit?

Don't you think there's a problem with that?

Not really. If a member of congress votes to remove an elected official for no good reason, he will most likely be punished by the voters when he is up for re-election. In the United States, a member of congress can be removed from office if 2/3's of his colleagues vote for it. I don't remember it ever being abused when a party had a super majority.

Quote:
It's not clear what is and isn't "loaded," so you'd have to have all the questions approved by majority to be on the safe side. That takes a long time, so followup questions can't be performed.

It is just a questionnaire. The questions wouldn't be asked in real time.

Quote:
Isn't that very bad? Many voters want to know the answers to religious questions. News networks don't have this limitation.

The news networks aren't apart of the government. The U.S. constitution prohibits the government from implementing a religious test to run for office as it should.

Quote:
If it has the power to arrest people who don't show up for interview, that's obscene. If it doesn't, how will it enforce its mandatory requirements?

If a candidate or elected official didn't show up, the interview would be rescheduled. If he didn't have a medical excuse, he would be given a warning. If the particular candidate or elected official is prone to skipping interviews, he would either be removed from the ballot or removed from office.

Quote: Original post by Yann L
I think that intentional lying to the public while holding a public office should be punishable by public whipping (with a live TV feed). After the third occurance, we go with Talroths' guillotine suggestion, again live on TV. That would solve quite a few problems, if you ask me.

While it may sound good in theory, it would be HORRIBLE in practice.

First off, how do you define lying?

Does it mean deviating from the truth? Does it mean any intentional deception? Must it be intentional?


We live in a world where deceptions and lying is everywhere. Entertainment is almost completely fabricated. Look at the many deceptions of Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. We teach children that certain deceptions and lies are acceptable from a VERY young age.



We live in a world of majority politics on complex issues. There are intellectual, moral and political majorities, and they are often conflicting.

We also live in a world of sound bytes. Anything more than a few words (like this post) tends to get ignored entirely or misrepresented by partial quotes or focusing on segments rather than the entirety.



When a politician is asked "Do you like bill 137" they must answer with a simple yes or no.

In most cases both answers are untruthful. Some portions are probably distasteful, others are favored. They may dislike the bill but understand the necessity of it. They may feel against it personally but understand that their constituents support it. Giving a fully truthful answer would mean that the media gets to pick and choose what part of the truth is shown.

It is better for the politician to give a small untruthful answer that is only slightly distorted by media, rather than a truthful answer that the media will completely distort.



Consider intent. Mistakes and natural errors are often attributed to malice. People make mistakes and say one thing only to discover later that it was false. Consider a prominent issue in the news right now about a bunch of backup tapes that were mislabeled. Some people say it was intentional and malicious, other people say it was a simple human error sticking the wrong label on a box. Is this a lie that would give the death penalty in your example, or is this an honest mistake that anybody could make?


Consider sensitive issues. For parents it is like the young child asking where babies come from. You don't give a 3-year-old the full lecture, because that truthful of an answer would be hard for them.

When politicians are asked hard questions about sensitive issues, many times we really don't want the full truth. We often want a glossed-over view, we want evasion, even if we cannot admit it.


It is expected for politicians to lie. We *WANT* politicians who can make convincing debates on either side; it shows they understand the issue, but it requires the ability to deceive. We *WANT* politicians who will take sides on complex issues, even when we know deep down that complex issues typically contain conflicting moral truths. We *WANT* politicians who can negotiate and argue and fight behind closed doors, then walk arm-in-arm to the public spotlight as though they were best buddies. We *WANT* politicians who will do what is best for everybody and appear happy about it, even when they aren't.


I want politicians to lie when they need to. I want them to be good at it. I want them to be very smart about it, and deceive when necessary. Not always, but when necessary. I want a politician who can not only lie, but also conceal, obscure, sidestep, evade, gloss-over, and misrepresent the truth not AGAINST people, but FOR people.

Quote: Original post by frob

Quote: Original post by Yann L
I think that intentional lying to the public while holding a public office should be punishable by public whipping (with a live TV feed). After the third occurance, we go with Talroths' guillotine suggestion, again live on TV. That would solve quite a few problems, if you ask me.

While it may sound good in theory, it would be HORRIBLE in practice.

Of course it wouldn't work in practice, it was obviously ironical.

Quote: Original post by frob
First off, how do you define lying?

Although that is an interesting question, it can often be observed that politicians get away with things that would be considered fraud (or worse) when done in business. In the latter case, there are well defined laws that guide such decisions. Although the law can obviously be bended, it will at least give you a basis to build upon. As a prominent example, GWBs' lie over WMD in order to wage a war bringing good business to his buddy companies, would most definitely be classified as malicious intent (and frankly, I would think that the death penalty would be fully warranted for GWB, Rumsfeld, and a few others, but that's a different topic).

Right now, there is no real way to hold politicians personally accountable for their decisions. I don't think that 'collective liability', where the political party buffers most of what party members do, is very effective. It doesn't give a politician enough deterrent from doing something malicious, if the worst case outcome would be him resigning from office (probably with a large golden handshake).

The decisions of politicians affect the personal life of millions of people. This power comes with great responsibility. In that light, I find it only fair that politicians need to take personal responsibility for their actions. Be that through my ironically mentioned corporal punishment (which would probably be rather effective though), or more realistically, through very significant monetary fines (several years of salary for big offenders) and significant jail time. In essence, make politicians personally liable for their decisions.

Quote:
I want politicians to lie when they need to.

I don't. I find it absolutely unacceptable to be deceived by someone I gave my trust by voting for him. For me, a politician blatantly misrepresenting facts to the public is the equivalent of a board of directors lying to the shareholders over performance figures. There is no excuse for this. Oh, and it's illegal too.

Quote:
I want politicians to lie when they need to. I want them to be good at it. I want them to be very smart about it, and deceive when necessary. Not always, but when necessary. I want a politician who can not only lie, but also conceal, obscure, sidestep, evade, gloss-over, and misrepresent the truth not AGAINST people, but FOR people.

The only person with the authority to decide what is best "for my own good" is, well, me. And not some random smartass with a personal agenda.