Elective Office

[JOEBIALEK]

One of the ambitious proposals put forth by former Vice-President Al Gore was the "re-invention" of government. While the Clinton Administration may have made some progress towards promoting greater efficiency, the result was that government actually grew in size mainly because of bureaucratic self-perpetuation. No one in the United States would disagree that the reduction of government waste should be given top priority. However, before tackling such a problem, one must examine the root causes and not merely treat the symptoms.

When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they deliberately left out the "structural path" of elective office but were very clear on names of offices, branches of government, duties of elected officials etcetera. However, what they failed to foresee was the need for elective offices to follow a required path. For example, take the leader of the executive branch; if a person wants to be elected president of the United States, they must first serve as mayor of a city, commissioner of a county and then governor of a state. The two-term limit (eight years) should also be extended to include these lower chief executives as well.

The legislative branch should have a similar path. If one wants to be elected United States senator, they must first serve as a U.S. congressperson from that state. Before serving as a congressperson, they must serve as a councilperson of a city, representative of a state and then as a state senator. The two-term limit should apply here as well.

As for the judicial branch, a United States supreme court justice must serve as a municipal court judge of a city, common pleas court judge of a county, circuit court or district court judge of a state, appeals court judge and state supreme court judge. The two-term limit would apply here also.

Furthermore, the education of these candidates to-be should entail the equivalent of earning a bachelors degree, masters degree and a doctorate in philosophy degree. These degrees must be earned prior to running for elective office. Besides providing a focused academic training it will promote a greater maturity in our candidates before they experience the rigors of their first elective office.

Few could doubt that this path would provide good practical training for those seeking higher office while at the same time establishing a track record that voters could more easily analyze and understand. The two-term limit would allow greater participation because the office would be wide open every eight years. This would force the elected official to properly execute his/her duties and not be as influenced by the various special interest groups.

Government today is often seen as part of the problem rather than a solution to the problem. Perhaps if the United States would consider a path of development for its "philosopher kings" public trust would return and something may actually get done.

[Crys]

While that's an interesting plan, I really think that would contribute more to the current problems than it would help. It would become nearly impossible to break the existing two-party system (which you'd think everyone could tell was long overdue for scrapping), whereas now it's at least possible (even if difficult) to at least be _heard_ as a candidate.

The biggest problem with politics is not inexperience. It's _too_much_ experience. Career politicians are more likely to be corrupt or swayed by extreme special interests, because they're looking for the next campaign donation and re-election and therefor have less incentive to do what's right instead of what's expedient. Term limits on _all_ offices would help curb that problem. Requiring a specific path of previous service, however, would cut out any citizen who didn't start training to be President as a teenager or whose service was equally great but on a different path. Essentially, this would mean that _only_ career politicians could reach high political office.

I'm afraid that the path set out here would also ensure that any person who was qualified was so old that they'd be unlikely to survive their entire term, and I think we all remember the problems it caused during Reagan's presidency when he began to lose his mental faculties due to age.

It's an important, no _crucial_, aspect of the theory of our government (if not the current practice) that practically every office is open to practically every citizen and the farther we stray from that, the worse the government will get.

[Kris10]

The Supreme Court is a great example of ageism harming the political climate of our country. William H. Rehnquist is simply too old and frail to continue his post, yet he won't resign. The President is looking at a relative youngster to join the Court. John Roberts could potentially serve 30 years or more. If we don't like him, we'd be stuck with him for years. Terms for life just doesn't cut it anymore.

As our country evolves, our political system needs to be inclusive of the country's changing demographics. For every stride we make in diversity, another rich, white man joins the political landscape. We can only change this if we remain aware, be vocal about our beliefs and take action by voting.