Screening for politicians?

Kevster

Okay, let's see if this would work: before a person could be a TD or go for election to a council seat, s/he would have to obtain a licence (paying it, of course). In order to obtain such a licence, they'd have to be psychologically-evaluated, complete a course, and be at a certain academic level.

Kevin

Cookie_Monster

Why? What purpose would making them have a driving licence serve at the end of the day and you couldn't have the above tests just for potential politicians to get their licence without having it for everyone else.

They need a tax clearance cert already (only in theory though - as the Mick Wallace and Bertie Ahearn saga's prove), some kind of relevant qualification should probably be required also, after all you wouldn't hire a paramedic for an engineering job or a lawyer to be a physics teacher now would you?

Kevster

...driving licence?

Anyway, perhaps just the qualification should be needed because, as it stands now, virtually anyone can become a politician. It seems - however - to only attract certain groups of people who are simply not up for the job.

Kevin

Nodin

Kevster wrote: »

...driving licence?

Anyway, perhaps just the qualification should be needed because, as it stands now, virtually anyone can become a politician. It seems - however - to only attract certain groups of people who are simply not up for the job.

Kevin

This comes up every now and again. I suppose you think the ideal Justice minister would have a legal qualification, the finance minister some economic or similar qualification......

johnnyskeleton

Kevster wrote: »

...driving licence?

Anyway, perhaps just the qualification should be needed because, as it stands now, virtually anyone can become a politician. It seems - however - to only attract certain groups of people who are simply not up for the job.

Kevin

Who says they are not up to the job? They provide corrupt financially illiterate governance for a corrupt illiterate population. Whether its the people of North Tipp voting Lowry back after Mahon, or the prople of laois offaly electing barry cowen to replace his brother, the people want national tds to sort out their personal and local issues and the rest of the country can go swing.

Now, with fg/lab being punished for sorting out the mess, and ff back to top party after destroying the country, we can see full well just what the Irish voters want.

In a way, that's what representative democracy amounts to - giving people what they vote for. It does work, because the people who are not up to the job (of promising people what they want) are filtered out in the vote. It's only saving grace is that it is still better than a brutal dictatorship.

johnnyskeleton

Nodin wrote: »

This comes up every now and again. I suppose you think the ideal Justice minister would have a legal qualification, the finance minister some economic or similar qualification......

It wouldn't matter what the ministers qualifications were so much if the dof was staffed with people who were economically/financially qualified or doj legally qualified.

Denerick

Democracy is the only system that gives people the politicians they deserve. Any sins a politician commits, the citizen is directly responsible for.

Cookie_Monster

Kevster wrote: »

...driving licence?

Anyway, perhaps just the qualification should be needed because, as it stands now, virtually anyone can become a politician. It seems - however - to only attract certain groups of people who are simply not up for the job.

Kevin

I think I may have mentally added a word in there for some reason...

Cookie_Monster

Nodin wrote: »

This comes up every now and again. I suppose you think the ideal Justice minister would have a legal qualification, the finance minister some economic or similar qualification......

It would certainly help with familiarisation of what is going on in their departments in general. It seems pretty pointless to have a teacher in charge of the dept of finance rather than an accountant / economist for example.

yore

Kevster wrote: »

Okay, let's see if this would work: before a person could be a TD or go for election to a council seat, s/he would have to obtain a licence (paying it, of course). In order to obtain such a licence, they'd have to be psychologically-evaluated, complete a course, and be at a certain academic level.

Kevin

Right......................


Think about what you are proposing; You are proposing a subjective and arbitrary set of criteria by which a person can stand for election.

Sure why bother with the elections if you aren't going to let the people make their own mistakes. Let these psychologists just pick the people in power and allow them to control how long they stay for :rolleyes:

And what if the people implementing these psychological tests don't subscribe to your favourite political leanings? Is it still ok?

Also - certain academic level - this wouldn't happen to correspond to your own "academic level" now would it? As if a piece of paper ever made a man or woman smarter. Intelligence does not equate to education.

Is your post a serious post or just a bad attempt at trolling?

Nodin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

It would certainly help with familiarisation of what is going on in their departments in general. It seems pretty pointless to have a teacher in charge of the dept of finance rather than an accountant / economist for example.

Well, we've had a man with a degree commerice in charge of finance, a barrister in charge of justice.
The same man, in fact.

Kevster

yore wrote: »

...
Sure why bother with the elections if you aren't going to let the people make their own mistakes. Let these psychologists just pick the people in power and allow them to control how long they stay for :rolleyes:

Ummm... well... it seems that half the population don't bother going, because they don't even exercise their right to vote. What does that say to you?

yore wrote: »

And what if the people implementing these psychological tests don't subscribe to your favourite political leanings? Is it still ok?

Perfectly fine, because - ultimately - each one now is as bad as the next. So, I have absolutely no faith in any politician doing what they say they were going to do. Plus, I have absolutely no political leaning - I'm a free-thinker and I make the best of whatever rules are applied unto a nation.

yore wrote: »

Is your post a serious post or just a bad attempt at trolling?

It was a serious post. Is your name a joke?; or are you really just outdated?

Kevin

Kevster

For those who said that democracy/politics gives people what they voted for, how do you account for the fact that there are consistently low turnouts? Thi - for me - implies that many have simply lost faith and/or don't care.

Thus, it's not really representative of the entire population.

Kevin

Triangla

Maybe there should be a test for voters instead of a test for politicians.

The onus is on the voter to make an informed decision.

Kevster

Triangla wrote: »

Maybe there should be a test for voters instead of a test for politicians.

The onus is on the voter to make an informed decision.

We cannot trust the voter, neither can we trust the politicians. Those whose votes matter the most are the onse who are disillusioned by politics and who have given up trying.

How do we lure those people back?

johnnyskeleton

Kevster wrote: »

For those who said that democracy/politics gives people what they voted for, how do you account for the fact that there are consistently low turnouts? Thi - for me - implies that many have simply lost faith and/or don't care.

Thus, it's not really representative of the entire population.

Kevin

Not caring is also a political position, one which fits in nicely with how the Irish electorate have turned a blind eye.

Or to put it another way, more people voting is more likely to produce a better class of politician than a better class of politician to produce a greater turnout. Neither, sadly, is very likely unless people become more educated about who they vote for and become less selfish.

Thomas_I

Kevster wrote: »

Okay, let's see if this would work: before a person could be a TD or go for election to a council seat, s/he would have to obtain a licence (paying it, of course). In order to obtain such a licence, they'd have to be psychologically-evaluated, complete a course, and be at a certain academic level.

Kevin

If these suggestions would "sort out some corrupt wannabe-politicians", then the better, but seriously this procedure will never be established. They already in power would take all means to prevent that.

antoobrien

Triangla wrote: »

Maybe there should be a test for voters instead of a test for politicians.

The onus is on the voter to make an informed decision.

That sounds rather like the "democratic" system in the starship troopers book, where people only became citizens after serving in the military.

How would we administer this test and can we automatically fail people with sovereign rings, hoodies and for regularly wearing pyjamas in public?

Kevster

Thanks for the comments - some very interesting.

Kevin

Riskymove

Kevster wrote: »

How do we lure those people back?

From what I see, an X Factor style of elections

Riskymove

Kevster wrote: »

... It seems - however - to only attract certain groups of people who are simply not up for the job.

I suppose I would turn this around and ask:

1. what you think the job is?

2. what criteria you think is required?

Feathers

It sounds like you want the American system, OP —

• one electable politician as a figure-head;
• can appoint a cabinet of people based on their ability in a portfolio rather than their ability to get elected;
• house of people who you know when voting will be able to do no more damage than one vote's worth (i.e. if you think someone is a good deputy, but don't want them holding a ministry you can still give them a preference — the 'Willie O'Dea' factor: he gets loads of votes, better give him a minstry, wouldn't apply any more);
• house also more likely to vote with their conscience rather than a party whip, as whether they're whipped or not doesn't enhance their career prospects or salary (being made chair of a committee or junior ministry for being well-behaved)
• longer-term, deputies who are willing to buck the party trend might also lead to a settling of the political landscape along more natural ideological grounds (rather than centre-right V centre-right)

All we need to do is decouple the government from the legislature. I think it would be a great move. If the Minister for Finance doesn't need to be electable, you can put any boffin you like in the position. As long as he still has to knock on doors though & convince Mary down the road that he'll fix the potholes to get a vote, it's a lost cause.

Lantus

Firstly, all democractic countries have lousy leaders and politicians that lack the skills to affect real change in society for the better. Politicians are what I term 'stupid' in that they have no real understanding of human behaviour, science or technology.

Its a laudable idea to put the best, brighest and most morally certain into positions of power in the hope that we can affect some real change. However, this wont ultimatley work.........(sad eyes)

Democracy currently sits within a monetary system and is subject to and bound by this value system. This system prioritises money over that of people and the environment. We all work to gain preferencial advantge over other groups within our own society and with other countries. Those who are already wealthy exert power and influence and politicians are subject and affected by this system.

Whether it be big business, other countries and their economies, or seperate groups in society all claiming that they wont vote for politicians unless financial preferencial advantage is bestowed upon them as a reward everyone seeks to further their own profit base ultimatley at the expense of society.

So even if we took the morally pure they would unfortuantley and eventually become part of a corrupt and greedy system and decisions made will reflect that system as they try to balance the desires, primarily financial of many different internal and external factors.

We are spending far too much time trying to work out how we can make a broken system work. Another political party wont create a fair and happy society, and while better politicians may slightly tip the balance we have to understand that the systems of society are the inherent problem here. Our social structures are very old and have not kept pace with our technological development.

Money as a method for resource control is fast becoming outdated. The entire premise of money and fractional reserve banking system is a faulty premise (creating debt out of thin air and then calling it money is unsane.)

The hope is that a group of individuals can come together, get elected with the sole intention of putting in place long term reform to start the job of changing society from its current greedy and destructive mess into something we may want our children to inheret one day.

Playboy

I'm not sure about the psychological screening aspect of your proposal but I would favour cabinet ministers being obliged to have a certain minimum level of qualifications/expertise in their office. It's not enough to have a staff full of qualified people, you need to be able to understand the issues intellectually and from a position of experience to enable you to consistently make the best decisions for your country.

Being the Minister of Justice or Finance or Agriculture should be an aspirational post and imo if these posts were ring fenced for people with the appropriate skills and experience then imo the right people would be lured into politics. Anyone should be able to run in an election, just dont expect to get one of the big jobs if the sum of your experience is a few years teaching teenagers or you are a career politician.

thebman

I would settle for a requirement to have sit some kind of civics course.

I'd wager most of our politicians have never attended such a course.

Cookie_Monster

thebman wrote: »

I would settle for a requirement to have sit some kind of civics course.
I'd wager most of our politicians have never attended such a course.

I dunno, chance to claim a weekend on the piss in a fancy hotel at tax payer expense, why wouldn't they?

Where would it stop? Would there be a piety test too?

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,
Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,
And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

Edit: I am being a bit harsh - maybe we should start with asking for potential politicians to provide a tax clearance cert or the likes. I note that Bertie Ahern was able to provide one though.

Duggys Housemate

I would replace the existing system with a list system for the Dail with the executive branch (the man elected Taoiseach to begin with) given the right to hire cabinet members from outside the Dail ( or even the country). The Dail can hold nomination hearings (with a time limit) and oppose a nomination with a majority vote - but if that happened the Dail might as well dissolve.

The Senate, which has the "elite" status some people now want for the lower house to be elected via STV. It will have powers similar to the present senate - ie few - but can hold bureaucrats to account in hearings. I want to keep the TD ombudsman role in the Senate while reducing the power of people who are elected for that reason.

As an aside can Dubliners stop pointing to "Tipperary" or "Laois" corruption when making comments against the present system. Most corrupt TDS were Dubliners. Most of the real corruption in Dublin.

Matt_Trakker

I'd be happy if they were just university educated in the field they're governing, i.e a Finance Minister must hold a t least a Masters in Economics/Finance etc, Minister for Health must have the same in a Medical field.
They way it is, we've got a crapload of primary school teachers running the place and sure it's not surprising to see that they constantly talk down to us like 5 year olds and think we're idiots.
We, we are idiots, we voted for them in the first place I suppose.

goose2005

Kevster wrote: »

For those who said that democracy/politics gives people what they voted for, how do you account for the fact that there are consistently low turnouts? Thi - for me - implies that many have simply lost faith and/or don't care.

Thus, it's not really representative of the entire population.

Kevin

You also have to factor in our poor electoral system - many people are left on the register even though they are emigrated/living somewhere else/dead. I know of several people who are listed more than once due to incompetence (and Ireland's vague address system). Add in students or people working away who might have to face a 6-hour round trip because weekend elections are apparently impossible.

COYW

I do agree that we need to screen them but it is pointless if the electorate don't change. The electorate and their mentality towards politicians is as much a problem as the politicians themselves. People go on about corrupt politicians all the time. However, the exact same people have no issue in calling up their local politician when they need a bit of pull to get a medical card, a quicky passport or god know what else. It is never corrupt or underhand when they benefit from it, only when someone else does!

It will take many generations to alter the political system in this country, to remove the parish-pump politics. Personally, I am pro-USE, as I believe having a body in central Europe monitoring the behaviour of our representatives, forcing change on them and punishing them when they slip up, is the only way I see things ever changing. I have lived on the continent and the thought of ringing up your local representative to "pull a few strings" for you, is completely alien. I also agree that the Minister for Finance should have a background in Finance, Justice in Law and so on. It is basic common sense.

Duggys Housemate

COYW wrote: »

What is the point in screening politicians? The electorate and their mentality towards politicians is as much a problem as the politicians themselves. People go on about corrupt politicians all the time. However, the exact same people have no issue in calling up their local politician when they need a bit of pull to get a medical card, a quicky passport or god know what else. It is never corrupt or underhand when they benefit from it, only when someone else does!

It will take many generations to alter the political system in this country, to remove the parish-pump politics. Personally, I am pro-USE, as I believe having a body in central Europe monitoring the behaviour of our representatives, forcing change on them and punishing them when they slip up, is the only way I see things ever changing. I have lived on the continent and the thought or ringing up your local representative to "pull a few strings" for you, is completely alien.

By and large they are calling their politicians to interface with a slow moving bureaucracy. Not the worst idea. Unfortunately it gets bad politicians. Which us why I would move this feature to the Senate.

oscarBravo

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

By and large they are calling their politicians to interface with a slow moving bureaucracy.

Then they should be electing people who will fix the broken bureaucracy instead of working the system and thereby perpetuating it.

Duggys Housemate

oscarBravo wrote: »

Then they should be electing people who will fix the broken bureaucracy instead of working the system and thereby perpetuating it.

How? Do you want a fireable civil or public service? Would you like elected managers ( the US elects some officials but that leads to other forms of populism). I don't.

However giving ordinary people power over a kafkaesque bureaucracy is a good idea, provided that the power they get does not interfere with, or influence, the executive. So I move STV to a powerless senate.

This thread is weak. How many people have ventured an opinion on a different political system rather than launch attacks on the electorate?

Duggys Housemate

To deal with the only "substantive" other argument made - that the justice minister should be a law graduate, the finance minister a economics graduate etc.

1) as pointed out previously Haughey had both position and had both degrees.
2) how do you ensure the election of these people?. If you mean that the cabinet can be selected outside the Dail say that. Otherwise the pool of candidates would be tiny.
3) if you do mean the latter we'd be better of with PHDs from Stanford rather than an BE from Trinity so open the cabinet up to anybody, citizen or not.
4) should education always go to teachers? Tourism to B&B owners? Enterprise to pub owners? Social welfare to far left sociology professors? Who would do science? And why is Justice to go to a law grad rather than a policeman ( if we are assuming expertise). Look at Shatter. .
5) Economics professors are particularly dangerous as they tend to be more idealogical than the average - monetarists or Keynesians. But economics is a simple subject. Better off to have a mathematically minded generalist there.

Feathers

COYW wrote: »

However, the exact same people have no issue in calling up their local politician when they need a bit of pull to get a medical card, a quicky passport or god know what else. It is never corrupt or underhand when they benefit from it, only when someone else does!

It will take many generations to alter the political system in this country, to remove the parish-pump politics.

It wouldn't take many generations, just a simply legislative change — make it a criminal offence for a sitting TD to contact the county council, Garda Síochana or any other government office on behalf of a constituent.

When the Passport office were having a go-slow, they refused to take calls from TDs. If this were standard practice & enforced, it would mean that people would have to elect TDs for issues that weren't local, & if TDs wanted to assert influence on behalf of their constituents, they'd have to do it through the legislature — i.e. by putting forward bills & debating on their behalf in the Dáil.

Not sure how you could deal with the pothole fixing in the Minister for Transport's constituency, etc., but could be a start.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

4) should education always go to teachers? Tourism to B&B owners? Enterprise to pub owners? Social welfare to far left sociology professors? Who would do science? And why is Justice to go to a law grad rather than a policeman ( if we are assuming expertise). Look at Shatter. .
5) Economics professors are particularly dangerous as they tend to be more idealogical than the average - monetarists or Keynesians. But economics is a simple subject. Better off to have a mathematically minded generalist there.

If you did move the cabinet out of the Oireachtas & have them appointed rather than elected, I don't think you'd have the need for hard & fast qualifications — your elected Taoiseach would be answerable by proxy for the quality of the cabinet he put forward, so he could choose to go with either an academic or otherwise, depending on what's needed at the time.

You would get greater responsibility though — at the moment, the clueless minister can hide behind decisions of the consultants & advisors, claiming ignorance. If you had an appointed Minisiter though, they'd be appointed on expertise alone, so whether that came from being a commissioner in the Gardaí or by being a barrister, if you don't know enough about the Justice portfolio & make a major error, you can be called to account on it at least

yore

Kevster wrote: »

Ummm... well... it seems that half the population don't bother going, because they don't even exercise their right to vote. What does that say to you?


Perfectly fine, because - ultimately - each one now is as bad as the next. So, I have absolutely no faith in any politician doing what they say they were going to do. Plus, I have absolutely no political leaning - I'm a free-thinker and I make the best of whatever rules are applied unto a nation.


It was a serious post. Is your name a joke?; or are you really just outdated?

Kevin

Why stop there? Maybe have it like the US elections (seeing as how your location is the US) where you have to be connected or extremely wealthy to get power.

Much better eh? No more of those pesky plebs getting uppity now! We can't have that


I think that your suggestion is just ill-thought out and stupid.

yore

COYW wrote: »

I do agree that we need to screen them but it is pointless if the electorate don't change. The electorate and their mentality towards politicians is as much a problem as the politicians themselves. People go on about corrupt politicians all the time. However, the exact same people have no issue in calling up their local politician when they need a bit of pull to get a medical card, a quicky passport or god know what else. It is never corrupt or underhand when they benefit from it, only when someone else does!

It will take many generations to alter the political system in this country, to remove the parish-pump politics. Personally, I am pro-USE, as I believe having a body in central Europe monitoring the behaviour of our representatives, forcing change on them and punishing them when they slip up, is the only way I see things ever changing. I have lived on the continent and the thought of ringing up your local representative to "pull a few strings" for you, is completely alien. I also agree that the Minister for Finance should have a background in Finance, Justice in Law and so on. It is basic common sense.

You do get to screen the politicians. It's called an election. Or do you think that your opinion is special and that you and your mates should get to decide who the rest can or cannot vote for?

MrScootch

yore wrote: »

You do get to screen the politicians. It's called an election.

+1

Feathers

yore wrote: »

Maybe have it like the US elections (seeing as how your location is the US) where you have to be connected or extremely wealthy to get power.

Much better eh? No more of those pesky plebs getting uppity now! We can't have that

We hardly have an egalitarian system in that regard - smaller scales obviously, but you still have funding weighted towards existing political parties. If you tried to set up a new party nationally, you'd need a lot of money behind you in order to get your message out & have enough people elected to have a decent influence on the Oireachtas.