Improve the quality of candidates democratically

Post Reply New Topic

After several elections where there is a very lackluster choice to say the least, it got me thinking.

What democratic way could you improve the quality of candidates, which would be practically implementable, e.g. it wouldn't grind the country to a halt?

Could you also vote on the confidence you have in your choice? To the extent that could determine the viability of the candidates and if they are not viable they could be taken out of the running for that election?

I personally think that there are too many barriers to entry in the first place so that favour those that have a lot of funds or those who can get large endorsements from cooperates or unions which is arguably less democratic. Could both campaign time and funds be capped?

Also election campaign are way too long especially in the US, yet very little of it is spent discussing the detail of policy.

Could there be a vote of confidence half way though term, to see if the public want another election?

could the top runners be eliminated if the public votes that the choice is too poor (in either candidate)?

Come up with some ideas.

The US doesn't have democratic elections for our president, as the founders viewed democracy as evil. And common people were considered too stupid to vote wisely.

So, it wouldn't make sense in the US.

You may be referring to the founding father's assessment of direct democracy.

Firstly the terminology didn't exist but the concept was explored.

I actually agree with their finding but add:

1. Direct democracy is not at all scalable.
2. It is not practical or cost effective to have more than the occasional referendum.
3. It is not a substitute for governance.
4. Somebody has to set the questions....
5. Even politician that flout it as a buzzword know full well it won't work.

Some ideas: term limits, expand congress to over 6k seats so no district exceeds 50k people, abolish Washington, D.C. as our seat of government and have part-time legislators telecommute their votes from their state capitols, repeal the 17th amendment so the senate represents the interests of the states instead of being a super congress, basic civics tests of some sort to register to vote, perhaps a two round presidential system like France. More direct democracy and self-determination is a good thing think.

It's weighted also.

For example, Clinton won the popular vote, yet lost because Trump's votes counted more.

That's because the electoral college is not based on population, it's based on the number of representatives a state has in congress.