This is a very simple concept, but one that has not so far been incorporated into the ballot process: voting for a politician is in theory like hiring a person for a job – by group consensus. Anyone who’s ever done interviews (given them, I mean) at a medium or large company knows how this works. Although the Hiring Manager has the final say, it’s basically to a consensus decision as everyone discusses and weighs the pros and cons together and this heavily weighs the outcome. Of course, hiring a person for a regular job is a different proposition than voting on a representative lawmaker because a regular job is a much simpler thing. And yet, the hiring process for a regular job is, in many ways, a much more convoluted affair. Although politicians spend a lot of time campaigning, it seems they’re mostly going for name recognition. They give some speeches, say some vague things, but where are the facts and who is doing the background checking for us? Where are the resumes for us to review?
I know politicians for election give speeches and stuff, but what I really want is a concise summary of where they stand on different issues. Something they’ll commit to on paper. And also, how have they voted in the past on those issues? And what life experience do they have – what companies have they worked for and in what positions? And would someone please call those places for references? Conflicts of interest (current holdings in companies tied to political lobbies)? What is their military record? Yeah, I know I could probably find out some, perhaps most of this information on my own (with painstaking research), but it’s not feasible for any regular voter to do for all the candidates on ballot. This should be a requirement for candidates to provide the resume and government non-partisan workers should compile voting records and perform background checks.
When you look at a ballot, all you see is a name and a political party – what good is that? I mean, sure, you might recognize some names and know the gist of a political party’s ideology (more so for any third party as the two main parties are each becoming ever more divided and muddled), but what does that particular person stand for? And, assuming you’ve been devoting a lot of time to the campaign, while you might generally know what one or two of the candidates stand for, how can you adequately compare all the candidates without knowing the full picture? Like candidate A claims to support issue X, but the voting record of this candidate has consistently been against issue X, while candidate C hasn’t said anything about issue X, but candidate C’s voting record has been consistently for issue X. Well, if X is the most important issue to you, don’t you think it’s important that you know the voting record on that issue?
Let’s face the facts here, most people are not voting on which candidate will be the best overall representative of their own interests (based on facts), but they’re voting based on a feeling of who is the best. I believe this is significantly weighed by the general charisma and appearance of the candidate (along with the political party affiliation and possibly one or two issues), rather than being based in knowledge of the candidate’s committed positions on a wide array of issues and actual capabilities (or voting record). I don’t blame people for voting by feeling – there’s really not much more to go on. I’ve watched some debates and there are plenty of words coming out, but oftentimes, the candidates both avoid saying anything of import – everyone is trying to be so middle of the road (two main parties, anyhow). Third parties (Libertarians, Greens, etc.) are not ever given face time in any major debate, so people are definitely not getting the full range of information.
I say we demand resumes and some fact-checking. These should be posted online and available at the poll stations – everyone should have easy access to all the information they need. Of course, some people will ignore this, but others will appreciate it and maybe we’d have some more informed decision-making by the voting public. ’nuff said.
Hey there.. This time, I’m commenting in your post! (E-mail will follow soon, I hope.)
Ever see this site? http://www.issues2000.org
No, I hadn’t seen that particular site, but I had seen a similar site in the past. This is definitely a good resource and a step in the right direction, but the site itself is overwhelming in presentation and there’s no way to narrow it down to the actual candidates (including local/municipal candidates) by your voting district. It would be so much easier (albeit time-consuming) to receive resumes (1-2 pages each) for each candidate at the ballot station (for all candidates on that specific ballot), although if a website could get granular to the voting precinct (by you entering zip code) that would be a great help.
Also, I don’t just want to know the candidate stance on the issues and voting record (though that helps), but their life experiences (especially where they have worked or are currently working and including military record, if any, and whether time was served domestically or in combat).
On a related note, the city of medford has a website, where residents could actually submit questions for consideration by local candidates and posted the answers by various candidates: http://www.votemedford.org