Ongoing YYCCC (Chu + Farkas) Transgressions Threat

[The Yen Man]

Man, does Farkas just disagree with everything for the sake of standing out? I can't remember one motion the guy went along with. They should try to pass a motion declaring Farkas is not a disagreeable ahole. I bet he'd go against that too lol.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

As much as I really don't want to see that guy run for mayor, I ultimately disagree with your stance here. If that disqualifies a candidate, then you're essentially discriminating against ex-cons who have already served their time, which is just another barrier to having them integrate back with society. ...

Disagree completely. If anything, the society would be much better served if it discriminates harder against unqualified people running for public offices. The qualifications should include:
- Age limits (35 at the beginning of the prospective term to 65 at the end of the term);
- Degree from accredited university which includes at least some education in finance, law and history;
- Minimum 10 years of real work experience (i.e. blogging, podcasting and Instagram influencing would not count);
- No past bankruptcies;
- No criminal convictions for serious crimes (e.g. drunk driving or a bar fight at age of 18 is not the same as financial fraud, rape or murder in your past);
- Some proven history of volunteering and community service.

Right now, good salary, good pension and perks that come with Canadian public offices, are way too attractive to people without any meaningful skills, knowledge, talent and experience. And the apathy of Canadian voters towards elections , in general, is making it happen. This is hurting us all.

[CPK80]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

- Minimum 10 years of real work experience (i.e. blogging, podcasting and Instagram influencing would not count);

Why would blogging, podcasting, and influencing not count especially if you did it for ten years and were successful. Many influencers are no different than any small business owner, they have staff, deadlines, they have to manage there finances, attract clientele, negotiate business agreements, etc....

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Disagree completely. If anything, the society would be much better served if it discriminates harder against unqualified people running for public offices. The qualifications should include:
- Age limits (35 at the beginning of the prospective term to 65 at the end of the term);
- Degree from accredited university which includes at least some education in finance, law and history;
- Minimum 10 years of real work experience (i.e. blogging, podcasting and Instagram influencing would not count);
- No past bankruptcies;
- No criminal convictions for serious crimes (e.g. drunk driving or a bar fight at age of 18 is not the same as financial fraud, rape or murder in your past);
- Some proven history of volunteering and community service.

Right now, good salary, good pension and perks that come with Canadian public offices, are way too attractive to people without any meaningful skills, knowledge, talent and experience. And the apathy of Canadian voters towards elections , in general, is making it happen. This is hurting us all.

I'd be ok with the age criteria, and I think the upper limit is more important than the lower one (speaking as someone in your range). Bankruptcies and unpardoned criminal convictions could be argued as demonstrating poor judgment.

But the degree and work experience I'd be strongly opposed to. Is there evidence people with fancy degrees are better leaders? For every Nenshi there's an Ignatieff counter example.

I also think excluding a huge swath of the population from being eligible to hold office (even hypothetically) would undermine participation in democracy, and de-legitimize the government in the eyes of a big chunk of people. And we've had enough trouble recently with people not following necessary government rules - if you make the government seem less approachable and representative you will absolutely make that problem worse.

[WhiteTiger]

I must admit...the last page in this thread has sparked several intersting conversations elsewhere online and IRL for me.

I could be tempted to walk back the "any conviction under the Criminal Code of Canada" bit and perhaps something like "any major conviction under the CCC" to avoid the Banana Republic thing (which is why, in my OP, it was the CCC...if you are convicted here, it'd have been in a court here.)

But I still feel that just letting any Tom, Dick or Sally off the street run for office (and apparently get the information that comes with that) isn't the best of ideas.

I don't know how to fix it re: what the qualifications list should be or who makes said list or even a list of positions that require qualifications (Like...city councillor, anyone. Mayor; must pass this bar, etc)...but this does feel like it's something that maybe needs a look at.

And with CaptainYooh...while I've never thought much about putting lower age limits on it, I've long thought that 60 should be a hard cut off upper limit. Anyone who turns 60 while in office can, of course, finish their term, but can't run for re-election. If the election falls on the day that you are 59 and 364 days old, that's fine too. Finish your term. You just couldn't run for re-election.

But yeah, some interesting thoughts about this for a good chunk of the day.

[Wormius]

We could look towards the places where they have fewer of these joke candidates and see what they are doing differently.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

...
But the degree and work experience I'd be strongly opposed to. Is there evidence people with fancy degrees are better leaders? For every Nenshi there's an Ignatieff counter example.

I also think excluding a huge swath of the population from being eligible to hold office (even hypothetically) would undermine participation in democracy, and de-legitimize the government in the eyes of a big chunk of people. And we've had enough trouble recently with people not following necessary government rules - if you make the government seem less approachable and representative you will absolutely make that problem worse.

These are all fair arguments, and they are expected. I think we should not use interchangeably bad/unsuccessful/lame politicians with people who simply should not be in politics in the first place. You wouldn't trust a person without a medical degree to operate on your heart. Why should the society be afraid to apply the same principle in selecting its politicians? A true democracy must be smart enough and strong enough to set the criteria for whose who want to lead the people on people's dime. We already have some criteria in place for qualification. So, it is just a matter of making them better, because as of now, we get whomever can ride the wave in.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Disagree completely. If anything, the society would be much better served if it discriminates harder against unqualified people running for public offices. The qualifications should include:
- Age limits (35 at the beginning of the prospective term to 65 at the end of the term);
- Degree from accredited university which includes at least some education in finance, law and history;
- Minimum 10 years of real work experience (i.e. blogging, podcasting and Instagram influencing would not count);
- No past bankruptcies;
- No criminal convictions for serious crimes (e.g. drunk driving or a bar fight at age of 18 is not the same as financial fraud, rape or murder in your past);
- Some proven history of volunteering and community service.

Right now, good salary, good pension and perks that come with Canadian public offices, are way too attractive to people without any meaningful skills, knowledge, talent and experience. And the apathy of Canadian voters towards elections , in general, is making it happen. This is hurting us all.

Those are all pretty significant and really cut out the "representative" aspect of representative democracy.

Why can't someone who is 25 years old run on policies that would be attractive people of that age? do only middle aged, university educated people get representation?

What would a 35-55 year old engineering graduate with a career in real estate law know about safe injection sites or public transportation initiatives that a bus driver or public health official with a two year certificate at SAIT wouldn't know?

Our issue isn't the quality of candidates, it's that people still end up voting for idiots like Johnston, Taylor-Greene, and DJT despite their clear incompetence and stance on issues.

The voters are the issue - candidates are a reflection of that.

Maybe we restrict voting to the people who own property?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Disagree completely. If anything, the society would be much better served if it discriminates harder against unqualified people running for public offices. The qualifications should include:
- Age limits (35 at the beginning of the prospective term to 65 at the end of the term);
- Degree from accredited university which includes at least some education in finance, law and history;
- Minimum 10 years of real work experience (i.e. blogging, podcasting and Instagram influencing would not count);
- No past bankruptcies;
- No criminal convictions for serious crimes (e.g. drunk driving or a bar fight at age of 18 is not the same as financial fraud, rape or murder in your past);
- Some proven history of volunteering and community service.

Right now, good salary, good pension and perks that come with Canadian public offices, are way too attractive to people without any meaningful skills, knowledge, talent and experience. And the apathy of Canadian voters towards elections , in general, is making it happen. This is hurting us all.

Under your proposed restrictions against "unqualified" candidates, both Stephen Harper (didn't have 10 years of "real work experience") and Jason Kenney (no university degree, let alone one that included studies in finance, law, and history; he's a failed religious studies drop-out) would have been disqualified from running when they were first elected to public office. They were also both younger than your arbitrary age restriction of 35, as was Jeromy Farkas (31 when elected to Council).

[ZedMan]

I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with those restrictions.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

These are all fair arguments, and they are expected. I think we should not use interchangeably bad/unsuccessful/lame politicians with people who simply should not be in politics in the first place. You wouldn't trust a person without a medical degree to operate on your heart. Why should the society be afraid to apply the same principle in selecting its politicians? A true democracy must be smart enough and strong enough to set the criteria for whose who want to lead the people on people's dime. We already have some criteria in place for qualification. So, it is just a matter of making them better, because as of now, we get whomever can ride the wave in.

There is an issue with what we think/expect politicians to do and what we think the bureaucracy does. In our democracy, politicians are the peoples' representatives - they represent the views of the voters; however, that should not overrule the deference to data/science/morality in their decision making.

A good politician listens to their constituents to understand their issues and problems. They should then synthesize those issues and problems into actionable items. Perhaps, like most of the population, the politician doesn't understand or know the details of the perfect policy, but the bureaucracy and policy advisors should be utilized to create a plan that seeks the solution.

Unfortunately representative democracy is bending under the stress of the complex nature our society now operates. No candidate or elected official is considered an expert on any topic - let alone one topic. The bureaucracy and the policy makers are one avenue, other experts or panel experts are others. Technically, special interest groups are to offer another avenue that politicians should then balance to produce a policy that works efficiently with minimal consequences to those not directly applicable.

The above is entirely corrupted in the current system. Few Politicians do not run on this basis anymore at any level. It's a show and it's merely an avenue to personal gain through post political life.

In the end, we elect these people

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Right now, good salary, good pension and perks that come with Canadian public offices, are way too attractive to people without any meaningful skills, knowledge, talent and experience. And the apathy of Canadian voters towards elections , in general, is making it happen. This is hurting us all.

Counterpoint, maybe the salaries and benefits are not high enough to attract many truly great candidates. I’ve known some people that would be phenomenal, but taking a 50% pay cut was just too much of a sacrifice. If you paid politicians double, yeah you might attract some of those low quality folks you describe, but I would bet in most cases that they would be beat by truly high caliber candidates it would help attract.

You kinda get what you pay for.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Counterpoint, maybe the salaries and benefits are not high enough to attract many truly great candidates. I’ve known some people that would be phenomenal, but taking a 50% pay cut was just too much of a sacrifice. If you paid politicians double, yeah you might attract some of those low quality folks you describe, but I would bet in most cases that they would be beat by truly high caliber candidates it would help attract.

You kinda get what you pay for.

chima nkemdirim, former Nenshi campagin chieff during his first run, has a story/joke. When nenshi first asked him to be his chief he was a partner at Dentons (FMC) easily pulling in 200k+

His response was "you can't afford me" By every measure he was correct.

[Weitz]

Unless you’re making significantly more in government, why would any half way successful person leave private business? It would take minimum double (probably more) compensation to have to deal with all the #### politicians have to deal with.

I will say though, anyone should be able to run for any position assuming they can meet the minimal requirements we have now, which is signatures I think? Cant limit it to socioeconomic status, education, or experience.

[CliffFletcher]

The emerging political conflict of our time is between the professional class of experts and the mass of less educated who distrust and resent those experts. Closing off one of the few avenues for average people to express their will in an increasingly complex and insecure world will only aggravate conflict. We can accomodate ourselves to the populists of today, or risk much more dangerous eruptions of revolt.

[CaptainYooh]

We are collectively forgetting how to not think in extremes. Maybe, it is the sign of our times. Politicians do not need to be experts in politicking or in any other areas. But they must be proficient enough to comprehend the matters presented to them for approvals. Otherwise, administration bureaucracy can easily manipulate and take control of the elected officials using their incompetence to incite fear and other emotions in support of budget and policy approvals. Politicians' only job should be to set public policies and oversee public spending by the administration.

Perhaps, as a substitute for a university degree, those who want to run for public office should take and pass a mandatory specifically-designed course on history, law and finance. Again, to prevent and discourage illiterate idiots from entering politics.

[Vedder]

All of that amounts to "The public is too stupid to choose a qualified candidate."

You may think that's true, but the types of solutions above are not going to fix the fundamental problem.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Counterpoint, maybe the salaries and benefits are not high enough to attract many truly great candidates. I’ve known some people that would be phenomenal, but taking a 50% pay cut was just too much of a sacrifice. If you paid politicians double, yeah you might attract some of those low quality folks you describe, but I would bet in most cases that they would be beat by truly high caliber candidates it would help attract.

You kinda get what you pay for.

Yup. Good enough to attract unqualified candidates. Not good enough to attract qualified candidates.

[CliffFletcher]

The issue isn’t the candidates. People who resent the expert class are going to find some way to lob bricks through the edifices of authority. And there’s nothing stopping educated professionals from playing the demagogue for political gain.

The problem is the alienation and resentment of a large chunk of the electorate in the West today. Yes, demagogues exploit that resentment. But they don’t conjure it up out of thin air. We need a way to restore trust among the less educated and socially mobile that our institutions are still operating in their interests, and not solely in the interests of a technocratic elite who they are growing to hate (and who in turn increasingly regard them as contemptible lumpenvolk).

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Vedder

All of that amounts to "The public is too stupid to choose a qualified candidate."

You may think that's true, but the types of solutions above are not going to fix the fundamental problem.

This is true. Also, I know a number of people with degrees who are straight up idiots. A degree doesn't exactly make someone some sort of decision making expert in leadership.

As an example, I know a number of people who have history degrees because they were good at social studies in high school and have no imagination. The idea that they are somehow more qualified leaders is ridiculous.