I agree with you, as that was what the American Republic was all about; a government for and by the people.

What do you think or what was the turning point then, that led the US to what it has become today?

I only ask because there lies the keys to the solution.

Identity politics. Vote for me because I am ____ (which is unrelated to any leadership, experience with management or other skills related to govt ) A good example is where I live. We have Augie T as our City rep.

Identity politics. Vote for me because I am ____ (which is unrelated to any leadership, experience with management or other skills related to govt ) A good example is where I live. We have Augie T as our City rep.

Would you entertain then, a changing of the criteria, for those who decide to run for public office?

I personally believe the criteria for publicly elected officials should have far more specific educational and job-related work experience.  For example, to run for governor, the criteria should clearly include a minimum college degree requirement (e.g., Masters, JD, Ph.D. etc.) as well as relevant experience (e.g., 10+ years of credible public or private leadership/management experience).

What do you think or would add?

Would you entertain then, a changing of the criteria, for those who decide to run for public office?

I personally believe the criteria for publicly elected officials should have far more specific educational and job-related work experience.  For example, to run for governor, the criteria should clearly include a minimum college degree requirement (e.g., Masters, JD, Ph.D. etc.) as well as relevant experience (e.g., 10+ years of credible public or private leadership/management experience).

What do you think or would add?

I don't like putting the requirements on candidates as the voters decide what requirements they want in their vote.

Everyone focuses on the elected officials but they do what they get elected to do.  The focus should be on the voters instead.

The focus should be on the voters instead.

Yes, the term low-information voter would should tell you what the issue is.

They rely on hearsay, outright media lies, and name recognition.

They have to real idea who or what they vote for, assuming they bother to vote.

The old poll tax was illegal, but the idea of requiring some basic idea of what a candidate stands for and what issues they might have an impact on.

Better to have my vote offset by an educated liberal, than a stupid low-info type that just goes by name recognition.

Yes, the term low-information voter would should tell you what the issue is.

They rely on hearsay, outright media lies, and name recognition.

They have to real idea who or what they vote for, assuming they bother to vote.

The old poll tax was illegal, but the idea of requiring some basic idea of what a candidate stands for and what issues they might have an impact on.

Better to have my vote offset by an educated liberal, than a stupid low-info type that just goes by name recognition.

Accusations are enough to convict in court or public opinion.

Case in point, my best friend’s mom was surfing social media and spouting all the facts of what has been happening. Her sources? Folks that post primarily about Korean and Chinese soap operas. Truth!

I don't like putting the requirements on candidates as the voters decide what requirements they want in their vote.

Everyone focuses on the elected officials but they do what they get elected to do.  The focus should be on the voters instead.

and that has brought us to where we are now

and that has brought us to where we are now

Tribalism has brought us to where we are.

There's no real difference between the GOP and Dems other than rhetoric.  A party is a party is a party.  They have one goal -- obtain and maintain political power.

One very effective method of winning elections is to keep the electorate divided and at odds with "the other side." 

Face it -- if the GOP could rally 80% of the people in every election, they would remain the only party with any real political power.  Best way to prevent that is to get voters to focus on "their" tribe.  Appeal to everyone's demographics, economic status, and so on.  That helps divide people emotionally.  Issues are secondary.

Like Hillary said, "I have two positions on every issue:  one public, and one private."  In other words, one is the truth which hurts her electability, and the other is a lie which is presented to gain public support.

Nothing new.  We all see how politicians make promises to get elected, then do almost nothing they promised.

Trump was a breath of fresh air, keeping and attempting to fulfill more promises in 4 years than any president in half a century did in 8 years.  I'd rather have a president I KNOW but don't 100% agree with than a snake-in-the-grass politician who says anything to get elected and never does what he promised.  It boggles my mind that so many here rag on Trump as a liar, but seem to forget every other president before him making tons of promises to get elected and delivering zilch.

Lying about facts is worse than not fulfilling promises.

Identity politics. Vote for me because I am ____ (which is unrelated to any leadership, experience with management or other skills related to govt ) A good example is where I live. We have Augie T as our City rep.

Id take augie over a career politician.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Tribalism has brought us to where we are.

There's no real difference between the GOP and Dems other than rhetoric.  A party is a party is a party.  They have one goal -- obtain and maintain political power.

One very effective method of winning elections is to keep the electorate divided and at odds with "the other side." 

Face it -- if the GOP could rally 80% of the people in every election, they would remain the only party with any real political power.  Best way to prevent that is to get voters to focus on "their" tribe.  Appeal to everyone's demographics, economic status, and so on.  That helps divide people emotionally.  Issues are secondary.

Like Hillary said, "I have two positions on every issue:  one public, and one private."  In other words, one is the truth which hurts her electability, and the other is a lie which is presented to gain public support.

Nothing new.  We all see how politicians make promises to get elected, then do almost nothing they promised.

Trump was a breath of fresh air, keeping and attempting to fulfill more promises in 4 years than any president in half a century did in 8 years.  I'd rather have a president I KNOW but don't 100% agree with than a snake-in-the-grass politician who says anything to get elected and never does what he promised.  It boggles my mind that so many here rag on Trump as a liar, but seem to forget every other president before him making tons of promises to get elected and delivering zilch.

Blind devotion

Blind devotion

It's far easier to fool the public than to convince them they've been fooled.

When Biden is outed as a corrupt politician making money for himself and his family while being soft on US trade deals with China, the people who supported him will dismiss the truth.

The media will feed us all some barely-plausible, half-assed excuse for why Biden's corruption doesn't matter -- even if it IS true!

It's far easier to fool the public than to convince them they've been fooled.

When Biden is outed as a corrupt politician making money for himself and his family while being soft on US trade deals with China, the people who supported him will dismiss the truth.

The media will feed us all some barely-plausible, half-assed excuse for why Biden's corruption doesn't matter -- even if it IS true!

This has already happened with a few major things.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Id take augie over a career politician.

I understand your reasoning, but are you willing to trade for a popular and maybe a well-intentioned, but way out of their league person versus someone more knowledgeable, but compromised?

I don't like putting the requirements on candidates as the voters decide what requirements they want in their vote.

Everyone focuses on the elected officials but they do what they get elected to do.  The focus should be on the voters instead.

This line of thinking would work, IF certain conditions are met.  For example:

1.  All voters are mentally and psychologically capable of critical thought and reasoning.
2.  All voters are well informed, on the critical issues that their society faces.
3.  All voters are knowledgeable, on the background, of each candidate, as well as the platforms they represent.

I would argue most voters in America do not possess the competencies listed.

 

This line of thinking would work, IF certain conditions are met.  For example:

1.  All voters are mentally and psychologically capable of critical thought and reasoning.
2.  All voters are well informed, on the critical issues that their society faces.
3.  All voters are knowledgeable, on the background, of each candidate, as well as the platforms they represent.

I would argue most voters in America do not possess the competencies listed.

and voters are citizens, still alive and only vote once

I understand your reasoning, but are you willing to trade for a popular and maybe a well-intentioned, but way out of their league person versus someone more knowledgeable, but compromised?

Yes. Bu la ia over any HI party favorite politician. As in look who the status quo is backing. Vote opposite.




Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I agree.

Why then, do you think the citizenry, of almost every nation, are often guilty of this?

Every civilization has a decline period according to Spengler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West

A lot of voters vote based on hair style, fashion, looks, and even race.  I wish there was some way we can stop this, but I feel there is no way without restricting voter's rights.

I would rather they just not vote. 

Another is union members just blindly voting whatever the union endorses.  The unions even provide "cheat sheets" to those members that can't or won't think for themselves.

Before I get bashed I was a union member that considered the union endorsements but always made the final decision when voting. 

Somehow, voters in America have to take the voting process more seriously.  Maybe it should be strongly taught in schools.  I remember it was once, don't know if it still is nowadays and won't be surprised it's not.

I take pride in being independent and free from any political party.  Vote for the person not the party.   Then you have to get more educated on who you are voting for.   But I also disagree with many here.  Part of America and democracy is the right to vote.  You can be educated,  uneducated. As long as you are American you can vote.  That's a good thing.  You don't have to be a certain class or mindset. So I don't think any limits on voting other than citizenship should be required.  That's the price and benefit of freedom.

Part of America and democracy is the right to vote.  You can be educated,  uneducated. As long as you are American you can vote...So I don't think any limits on voting other than citizenship should be required.  That's the price and benefit of freedom.

Well, the price of freedom has suffered major inflation, with the American experiment that has long since degenerated into an empire.

This is the 21st century; it is a preposterous proposition, to believe the requirements of a democratic republic should not be updated with the times.  In the realm of how a society elects its public officials, I can't believe there are some who would not want to clearly define and raise the requirements to hold office.  I do not see anything wrong with including an education and experience requirement.  Personally, I would institute a 21st century version, of the civil service exams, that ancient China required for all public officials and make sure all voters see candidates' scores.

Likewise, there should also be official voting requirements for LIVING CITIZENS as well.  I do not see any problem with taking a qualifying quiz, before exercising your right to vote, as a citizen.  Anyone can study before such a quiz and would probably benefit, with the knowledge gained, when they go to the polls.