Politics has become a far more complicated profession since the Constitution was written. At that time it was not seen as something one would make an entire career . There were no classes to prepare students for work in government so anyone could run for office. I believe that should be changed. Before people run for Federal, public office, they should pass a course in an approved, accredited school for the specific service. It should include a complete comprehension of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and exactly how the government works within each branch. An ethics segment should be included and each person should be studied as corporations check before security clearances are given. If they were in a previous office, even in state government, and successful there should be a rating system just as there are yearly evaluations on any job. I believe that politicians want that from teachers now so why should they not expect the same from themselves.
People believe that the voters are the ones who give that evaluation with their vote. However, voters really do not have access easily to rate the person if they have never served. Even if they are incumbents, the average voter does not evaluate with the same knowledge as a professional, party impartial evaluator
They should not be allowed to vote themselves perks and raises. Those shold be decided by outside, objective groups who are also trained to make up evaluative criteria. Not everyone should get the same recognition for jobs poorly performed as those who have worked diligently and successfully. How they voted, whether it was for the good of the country or in lock step with the party; how many votes did they miss, how many days were they not on the job, and similar issues and many more elements should be included in their evaluations..
Our current system of a popularity contest by whose money is greater and lies more believable is not working as out forefathers intended. After all, where else would someone get a job where they can do nothing for two to four years and get a raise, pension for life, medical insurance, insider trading tips, and lots of pay-offs in subtle underhanded ways?
People believe that the voters are the ones who give that evaluation with their vote. However, voters really do not have access easily to rate the person if they have never served. Even if they are incumbents, the average voter does not evaluate with the same knowledge as a professional, party impartial evaluator
They should not be allowed to vote themselves perks and raises. Those shold be decided by outside, objective groups who are also trained to make up evaluative criteria. Not everyone should get the same recognition for jobs poorly performed as those who have worked diligently and successfully. How they voted, whether it was for the good of the country or in lock step with the party; how many votes did they miss, how many days were they not on the job, and similar issues and many more elements should be included in their evaluations..
Our current system of a popularity contest by whose money is greater and lies more believable is not working as out forefathers intended. After all, where else would someone get a job where they can do nothing for two to four years and get a raise, pension for life, medical insurance, insider trading tips, and lots of pay-offs in subtle underhanded ways?
No comments:
Post a Comment