Suffrage

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Compact OED

suffrage /sufrij/

• noun the right to vote in political elections.

— ORIGIN originally in the sense intercessory prayers, also assistance: from Latin suffragium.

Many of the world's societies employ suffrage in choosing their government, their leaders and their laws. Many regard universal suffrage as a necessary element of democracy.

What are the pros and cons of suffrage? To what extent is it an aid or obstacle to choosing qualified leaders? To what extent does it turn the process into a simple popularity contest? Does it aid or hamper societies in building governments that truly govern in the best interests of all of their members? Does it aid or hamper the effort to build quality legislation that is fair and balanced for the whole of a society?

I find myself increasingly of the opinion that universal suffrage is an obstacle to finding qualified leaders and the formation of legislation that is truly in the best interests of all the members of a society. What do you think?

[jackson33]

As presented, this subject is very hard to address. World democracies, however presented differ in many ways. Parliamentary systems, the leaders are subject to rejection for popular opinion, but comes from the legislature itself and in many countries an impoverished populace will maintain a leader into dictatorship.

In the US, its somewhat different, though timed out and there are certain protections from the other systems. With the exception of now, the President/VP all voting and by WHOM is dictated by the States, which was intended. The States by ratification have allowed various to near total suffrage or the privilege to vote to near all people over 18 years old. Even that of the P/VP has been accepted as near the popular vote of this total, since the built in system for State legislature's rejection of the majority, has been largely ignored. This is why I have often mentioned, State Legislature or public approval of Senators, seems to be equal in any potential decision.

If suffrage of any group or demographic, is limited, the pool of potential candidates would have and would be equally limited. Inspiration or leadership qualities, should not be limited to any one type person, in todays society where education and media influence (good or bad) is still a major influence. Ignorance or some form of apathy will always exist in party loyalty, heritage or some notion of benefit, again good or bad.

Many times, several where all have been allowed to vote the public the public in the US has tended toward those interest of the total. WWII, Korea, treaty affirmations, Afghanistan just a few. Vietnam, Iraq may have been opposed, as many specific policies of government (War on Poverty), but in their times were supported, again by the cumulative total of eligible voters. I could lay this on party affiliation, but statistically its been the plurality both in public opinion and the total electorate, which has always come from the peoples house...

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by jackson33

If suffrage of any group or demographic, is limited, the pool of potential candidates would have and would be equally limited. Inspiration or leadership qualities, should not be limited to any one type person, in todays society where education and media influence (good or bad) is still a major influence. Ignorance or some form of apathy will always exist in party loyalty, heritage or some notion of benefit, again good or bad.

IMO the pool of potential candidates should be limited to those qualified to do the job, those with the experience to do the job. In the U.S. it seems to be tending more and more towards a popularity contest as opposed to a search for the best person to do the job.

Imagine if a large bank searched for a CEO the same way we search for a President. Anyone in the company could run regardless of qualifications. Imagine that the current Chairman of the Board is opposed by a teller or loan officer promising raises for all employees. All of the sudden the CEO process is a popularity contest and the one making the most promises wins even if they cannot keep those promises or do the job they are elected to do. This scenario doesn't work for business and doesn't work for government either. The bank needs a qualified CEO to do the best job for the company regardless of popularity.

Originally Posted by jackson33

Many times, several where all have been allowed to vote the public the public in the US has tended toward those interest of the total. WWII, Korea, treaty affirmations, Afghanistan just a few. Vietnam, Iraq may have been opposed, as many specific policies of government (War on Poverty), but in their times were supported, again by the cumulative total of eligible voters. I could lay this on party affiliation, but statistically its been the plurality both in public opinion and the total electorate, which has always come from the peoples house...

IMO this is tending away from the interest of the total. More and more voters are voting for the politicians that are promising them the most gifts and not those that promise to cut spending and get our finances in order. More and more voters are not voting for candidates whose policies would require them to exercise more personal responsibility. They are voting for becoming more and more dependent on government, driving government into the services business where it doesn't belong. More and more I believe we are seeing the viral effects of 'mob rule' by not limiting the choices the mob can vote for.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by C1ay

IMO the pool of potential candidates should be limited to those qualified to do the job, those with the experience to do the job. In the U.S. it seems to be tending more and more towards a popularity contest as opposed to a search for the best person to do the job.

Imagine if a large bank searched for a CEO the same way we search for a President. Anyone in the company could run regardless of qualifications. Imagine that the current Chairman of the Board is opposed by a teller or loan officer promising raises for all employees. All of the sudden the CEO process is a popularity contest and the one making the most promises wins even if they cannot keep those promises or do the job they are elected to do. This scenario doesn't work for business and doesn't work for government either. The bank needs a qualified CEO to do the best job for the company regardless of popularity.



IMO this is tending away from the interest of the total. More and more voters are voting for the politicians that are promising them the most gifts and not those that promise to cut spending and get our finances in order. More and more voters are not voting for candidates whose policies would require them to exercise more personal responsibility. They are voting for becoming more and more dependent on government, driving government into the services business where it doesn't belong. More and more I believe we are seeing the viral effects of 'mob rule' by not limiting the choices the mob can vote for.

I’m not really seeing this “Mob rule trend you’re speaking of . The electorate has always been a made up of different classes of people that do not see the world in the same way. The reason they do not is simply because they do not live in the same world. Democracy is about attempting to give a voice to every one in every facet of society. A President has to, if he or she wants to be elected, Attempt to represent, not in a real legislative sense but more as an image, of what the American public wants their leader to be. What I’m try to convey is a president in some way's is a popularity contest. They should reflect something that the common man can relate to, This can be bad or good depending on the public mind set. After 8 years of Bush the public should have done some soul searching and realized a fake cowboy is not the image we should be reflecting to the world. We get what we deserve, that's the great thing about democracy.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

A President has to, if he or she wants to be elected, Attempt to represent, not in a real legislative sense but more as an image, of what the American public wants their leader to be. What I’m try to convey is a president in some way's is a popularity contest.

It is not the job of the executive branch to be a representative of the people. It is the job to be the administrative executive of government in the best interest of the people. Making grandiose promises of gifts from the treasury, that it cannot afford, is not what we need of an executive. A good leader must make unpopular decisions on behalf of the whole and those do not come from those that only want to be popular. I do not see the current system of selecting an executive or representatives as being the meritocratic process that it should be.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by C1ay

It is not the job of the executive branch to be a representative of the people. It is the job to be the administrative executive of government in the best interest of the people.

After they are elected, but they first have to be elected.

Originally Posted by C1ay

Making grandiose promises of gifts from the treasury, that it cannot afford, is not what we need of an executive. A good leader must make unpopular decisions on behalf of the whole and those do not come from those that only want to be popular. I do not see the current system of selecting an executive or representatives as being the meritocratic process that it should be.

The only solution is to have a better informed public. The system is a good system. It is imperfect and if there exsist a better one I'v not heard it as yet.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

The only solution is to have a better informed public.

Or a cultural revolution...

When the general populace is more concerned about executive administration than American Idol or Angelina's new twins, then we might see more politics that actually stick to the issues and do not aim to deceive.

I'm with Tbird though, I don't see a way to fix this. Perhaps we could have the state reps vote for the prez? I'm sure that would not go over too well.

I seem to recall that this issue was highly debated when the Constitution was being formed. What did the founding fathers have to say about this?

[Thunderbird]

This is bit off thread but I talked to my state rep at the county fair over the weekend and she said that our senator from Mo has a good shot as Vp pick. Clair McCaskill.

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Or a cultural revolution...

When the general populace is more concerned about executive administration than American Idol or Angelina's new twins, then we might see more politics that actually stick to the issues and do not aim to deceive.

I'm with Tbird though, I don't see a way to fix this. Perhaps we could have the state reps vote for the prez? I'm sure that would not go over too well.

I seem to recall that this issue was highly debated when the Constitution was being formed. What did the founding fathers have to say about this?

Over the years, America has been a continuous cultural revolution. The demographics, ideology, laws, suffrage, have changed a great deal, BUT each generation has accepted the basic foundation for these changes to be limited to...The Constitution.

Yes, the founders debated who the nominees should be and how the final selection should be made, additionally who should be qualified. There were no party affiliation and individuals were considered on their merit. Since their object was and HAD to be ratification of the Constitution, they set minimal standards (Age, residency and general mental and physical condition) and the process to each states discretion. Party politics changed this, in time probably for the best.

Following the Party line, the 'Electoral College' TODAY and since the beginning has been used. Those electors are not bound by any vote and can legally choose anyone they want. They are taken from Congressional Districts, to this day.

Better informed electorate; The basic idea of 'free speech' was to allow that electorate or todays, access to the current and various opinions. As mentioned the writers of the Constitution, through the Federalist Papers, used the then existing media and since, every person seeking public office, has been allowed to freely express opinion. Editorials, advertisements or coverage of newsworthy events. It may be the electorate, hears only what they want, but has always had access to the information. It is not the responsibility of the working government to influence or educate people, into a judgement...

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by C1ay

IMO the pool of potential candidates should be limited to those qualified to do the job, those with the experience to do the job. In the U.S. it seems to be tending more and more towards a popularity contest as opposed to a search for the best person to do the job.

Imagine if a large bank searched for a CEO the same way we search for a President. Anyone in the company could run regardless of qualifications. Imagine that the current Chairman of the Board is opposed by a teller or loan officer promising raises for all employees. All of the sudden the CEO process is a popularity contest and the one making the most promises wins even if they cannot keep those promises or do the job they are elected to do. This scenario doesn't work for business and doesn't work for government either. The bank needs a qualified CEO to do the best job for the company regardless of popularity.



IMO this is tending away from the interest of the total. More and more voters are voting for the politicians that are promising them the most gifts and not those that promise to cut spending and get our finances in order. More and more voters are not voting for candidates whose policies would require them to exercise more personal responsibility. They are voting for becoming more and more dependent on government, driving government into the services business where it doesn't belong. More and more I believe we are seeing the viral effects of 'mob rule' by not limiting the choices the mob can vote for.

First, the duty of the executive and his/her administration, to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. That persons duty is then to the total, not any particular party, personal ideology or even then to their own home state or interest held previously to the election. Any actions perceived contrary to this end, can be contested by members of the Cabinet or the Congress.

In business, any form of business, the objective is to make money. In the corporate structure, the electorate is the investors or stock holders, but the objective remains the same. A competing business, by virtue of success will draw those investors from others. In Government the interest of the Federal is supposed to be those common interest of all the states or at least a major portion of them.

Since we have party participation and its not going anywhere, the leaders of these parties, do search out and select persons (in a number of ways) to run for office. It may come from local politics or actions in lower levels of government, but certainly those doing the search, are well qualified. Its not a bad thing, there are differences and its not a bad thing if some fail in the process to become number one/two or in fact if that one/two fails in their attempt. If be known to many of our ancestors, many would be failures, have turned out to be 'great' by historians and of course the reverse. Sometimes its better to study the success of what was, to what is perceived 'potential failures' of the future. Americans when called on (and many nations) have come together, as they will in the future.

You know, I DO NOT like using Democracy when talking Federal Government, but remember all of the States are democratic and in some cases, much more so than others. The founders also were concerned to some degree with local representation from every area of the then or todays country, even desiring a quick turn over or current representation from the people. House members and if we had held to the original ideas, their would be 8,000 people flooding into Washington each session. Their concern and I agree was for those that ended up in the Senate or Executive.

Out of curiosity, are you suggesting some form of test for voting, educational background? How could suffrage be turned around, in the first place? It is what it is, and the process to what it is, came from constitutional requirements....