Method for a better republic

[GregorStocks]

As our current system of government stands, many voters are extremely uninformed about the candidates who they vote for. My idea (which you've probably seen before) is as follows: to eliminate people simply voting for whoever is winning without knowing their positions on the issues, just have each person answer a few questions about their candidate in order to vote for them. Thus, to vote for Dean, you would need to know whether he supports the continued occupation of Iraq, his stance on health care, and if he has any particularly memorable positions. To vote Kucinich, you would need to cite his universal health care, guaranteed education from pre-K through college, and the Department of Peace. And to vote Bush, you would have to show that you knew all the horrible things he has done. And don't say this would "undermine democracy" - this would strengthen the very principles upon which it is founded.

[bryant69]

1. Then the Mice voted to bell the cat

I mean in some voting districts you might have guys out front looking for the following ansers "Dean is more liberal than Stalin." "Kucinich wants to turn over our soverignty to the UN." "President Bush is the only thing that stands between us and terrorists who hate America."

In other words, if you could get uniformity behind this idea, well, we'd already have won, wouldn't we?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[GregorStocks]

2. Of course, the fact that I'm a Kucinich supporter doesn't hurt.

Anybody who supports him tends to know his positions - nobody is like "I'll just vote Kucinich because he's gonna win." As opposed to Dean - I bet half of his supporters don't know anything but "Hey, he's winning!"

[newyawker99]

4. Hi GregorStocks!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[spindoctor]

3. You're on to something

I did a post a few months ago about selectsmart.com, where they host a simple program to help you select the presidential candidate that best fits your personal idea of how the nation should be run.

Kucinich leads the pack there (still) before Bush and Dean.

I heard a lot of comments about how it is not a poll (correct) and how it is not scientific (arguable), but the bottom line is that when you ask people about the issues instead of the candidate, their views are often incompatible.

So if I may add to your idea, rather than have people answer questions before voting, I would suggest that presidential candidates make a list of positions on 20 key-issues.
The people then vote on the issues, rather then on the candidate.

To prevent scumbags from pre-polling and lie on their positions, we would have to re-instate an old tool from the French republic, invented my Mgr. Guillotine. Any deviation from the chosen path and....of with their heads.

I still need to work on a few pittfalls, but it would certainly contribute to political awareness. After all, the public would be on the edge of their seat to see a politician break an election promise.

Yep, yep....we're definitely on to something here.