Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Get half a life.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                     

Self promotion ban

a ban not allowing politicians to vote.
  (-3)
(-3)
  [vote for,
against]

If your running then your not voting . People should not be allowed to run voting .
wjt, Sep 07 2003

Away With Simple Plurality http://www-personal...l/better-voting.htm
This is a very interesting article about America's flawed voting system. You should read this. [DeathNinja, Oct 17 2004]

[link]






       its just a bass in the ocean after all.
po, Sep 07 2003
  

       When someone is elected, they are, basically, being elected to cast votes in session, no? If you remove their ability to vote then what is the point? What is it they would do if they could not vote?   

       A senator, addressing another senator: "Mr. Senator, the law you have proposed is excellent but, as we cannot vote it into law--because we cannot vote due the WJT rule--your bringing it to our attention is very frustrating to the members and I ask that you refrain from such actions in the future."
bristolz, Sep 07 2003
  

       Now, if I could only get every single other person in the country to run for president, then I'd be a shoe-in..
DeathNinja, Sep 07 2003
  

       Because if there's one thing that gets in the way of democracy, it's the voting.
Detly, Sep 07 2003
  

       When you are in the government , your not running . Or are you ? ( to stay politically alive and not get a solid document thrust through your back ). Voting for a politician is one side of the game , being the politician is the other . Why should the politician play both sides of the game .
wjt, Sep 08 2003
  

       Now kiddies, running while voting is dangerous. You'll have someone's eye out.
custardlove, Sep 08 2003
  

       There isn't really any advantage either way. I doubt anyone has ever won with a majority of 1 in a big election.
RobertKidney, Sep 08 2003
  

       If a politician is too lazy to vote, he's obviously not worth voting into office. After all, not voting is a fairly good indication (most of the time) that you are not concerned with the issues facing a country.   

       And it's not necessarily self-promotion. Although I generally don't vote for my own ideas, a lot of people here do; there's nothing wrong with that. It just shows they think the idea is worth voting for.
Pseudonym #3, Sep 08 2003
  

       // Why should the politician play both sides of the game //   

       Why shouldn't they? Seems fair to me. What is it about running for an office that suggests the candidate should be allowed no say in the matter? Why does jumping into the race demand giving up the right to vote? You haven't answered this question at all, and it's at the heart of your idea.
waugsqueke, Sep 08 2003
  

       I like that [wjt] hasn't voted for this idea (unless s/he voted against it). Which brings up a point: would you allow people to vote against themselves? Can they vote in other elections or propositions? Can they vote for say city elections if they are a national politician? Or are they on the voting side of that game? And most importantly, why? Who cares?
Worldgineer, Sep 08 2003
  

       <Brewster's Millions>"Don't vote for me! Vote for 'None of the above!'"   

       Something interesting may come out of this yet. If a person was required to not vote for themself, but to pick another candidate, would the most-qualified, or simply the most-connected come out on top, inside that small voting loop?
RayfordSteele, Sep 08 2003
  

       My idea is because of the moral thing . A polictician is following a system where the right is for people to choose him or her . The polictician is giving up this voting right to let the people select their 'representitative' . At the moment the politicians can have their croissant and eat it too , not politicians I want in government . In the animated picture media , the runners in school elections always left the room .
wjt, Sep 09 2003
  

       Why doesn't the candidate have the right to vote for his representative too? You still haven't answered the question.
waugsqueke, Sep 09 2003
  

       because they are a candidate not a voter . There should be no blur in the rules . Also politicians can then get to feel / experience life as the other section of society that is not allowed to vote and go into government with new insight to make a better future .
wjt, Sep 09 2003
  

       I'm missing some of your logic, [wjt].   

       //because they are a candidate not a voter//
No, currently they are a candidate and a voter. Why are you changing this?
  

       //the other section of society that is not allowed to vote//
Childeren and non-citizens? Certainly there are much more significant experiences that politicians could have that would help them understand these groups than not voting.
Worldgineer, Sep 09 2003
  

       The idea is more emotional logic than real solid logic . The politicians right from start are seeming to get more than the people . Aren't prisoners , the mental ill blocked from voting ? Also heaven knows what reaction the politicians will have , when they are told they can't have something .
wjt, Sep 09 2003
  

       I saying politicians should NOT vote for themselves when standing - an understanding of the disallowed may produce better politicians
wjt, Sep 09 2003
  

       This doesn’t make any sense at all. If you want candidates to understand what it’s like to be a criminal or mentally ill then they should be required to spend some time in a prison or mental hospital.
AO, Sep 09 2003
  

       Any understanding , no matter where the knowledge comes from must make a better person . The moral upstanding thing to do , even if by belief alone is to not to use the vote because you are a candidate not a voter . The pure choice is therefore given to the people alone .
wjt, Sep 09 2003
  

       Right... because the candidate is not a person, apparently.
waugsqueke, Sep 09 2003
  

       But they are a candidate _and_ a voter. Only if you took away their voting rights would they become //a candidate not a voter//. Even if this helps them understand prisoners and the insane (which I argue that it in no way does), wouldn't you rather they understand the voters?
Worldgineer, Sep 09 2003
  

       If you are told you can't have something , and can see no logical reason for this , It's either going to make you a better person , crimminal or insane . a person is a person irrelavant to the label of voter and/or candidate .
wjt, Sep 09 2003
  

       You can't have my croissant. Does that really make you a better person?
Worldgineer, Sep 09 2003
  

       So why don’t we just take away all of a candidate’s constitutional rights?
AO, Sep 09 2003
  

       I find it hard to believe that there has been a public election anywhere that has been swayed by the winning candidate voting for themself (you would, after all, also need the losing candidate to have forgotten to vote for themself).
DrCurry, Sep 09 2003
  

       Shirley this idea is based on the premise that all candidates would always vote for themselves? In a secret ballot, is this a valid assumption on which to base legislation?   

       And candidates voting for themselves is possibly the smallest act of self-promotion involved in running a campaign.
egbert, Sep 09 2003
  

       I don't think the author is suggesting that the election results are the concern here. He seems to be concerned with ridding the world of the evil that occurs when candidates do what every else does in an election.
waugsqueke, Sep 09 2003
  

       We could just rid the world of politicians, and save the grief...
RayfordSteele, Sep 09 2003
  

       All this fuss over one silly little vote? It doesn't matter anyway, because now that the Republicans may be able to program the new electronic voting machines, on the fly, during an election, with no possible way to audit the system, we will have only Republican Presidents (and other offices that matter) from now on.
oxen crossing, Sep 09 2003
  

       I have come up with a reason.   

       The candidate has already had two special votes allowed to them, why a third. The nomination vote and the seconding vote are what I refer to. Those two 'special' people of the public seem to get to vote twice. In a way the Nominator and Seconder have already voted.   

       If you are nominating yourself, you have used up your vote that's fair.   

       I'm sure you'll say nomination and seconding isn't voting but in a way it is a form of selection endorsement of the candidate, a vote .
wjt, Jul 07 2017
  

       My sister once insisted that Margaret Thatcher was constitutionally obliged to vote Labour, and James Callaghan for the Conservative Party.
nineteenthly, Jul 09 2017
  

       Callaghan, I suppose , wouldn't be constitutionally but rather backroom subconscious pressure.
wjt, Jul 10 2017
  

       //your running//? Should be "you're", as in you're posting an idea with Trump-speak grammar.
xenzag, Jul 11 2017
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle