nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Qualified to serve?

Simtech

Are there/should there be minimum qualifications to become an elected representative?
If so, what are they/should they be?? It seems that any idiot can be elected? Of the idiots, for the idiots. Doesn't seem to make sense. Does a minimum standard exclude? Cannot anyone seek to achieve this standard? Should "The Party" seek to pay for their proposed electoral candidates to reach this standard and then put them forward for the decision of the people? Should we be electing people to positions in government rather than from particular constituencies?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Mark200

No, there should be no qualifications.

Idiots are only elected if idiots vote for them

bertie2

I want my rep to serve the community that put him there in the first place.

It can be like a private paid job for instance. You can have somebody who does their leaving cert and finished school to go on to work for 8 years and gain much needed experience. You can also have somebody who went and spent the 8 years studying but gained no experience.

I would prefer to have somebody proven to be a hard worker rather than somebody on paper who just sounds great.

themadchef

Simtech wrote: »

Of the idiots, for the idiots.

By the idiots....

Oh wait so we're.....

Simtech

Domo230 wrote: »

The whole point of democracy is that anyone can be elected.

Yes. I understand the point. It seems fair to say though that our elected politicians could be doing a better job if we look at it objectively. This is probably true worldwide. I just wonder if there might be a better method of getting things done. If we elect a person who is then widely considered not to be performing (we might not have to look far for such a person) then it is safe to say that either our electoral process could take some improvement or we are idiots electing idiots. So which is it?

Prof.Badass

What happened my post :mad:?

Just because you don't like a post doesn't mean it's fair to delete it!

btw,

YORE MA is qualified to serve............ the dinner

Nolanger

I'd like to see a TD question something that everyone seems to agree on such as climate change.

Simtech

vinylmesh wrote: »

What happened my post :mad:?

Just because you don't like a post doesn't mean it's fair to delete it!

btw,

YORE MA is qualified to serve............ the dinner !

Thank you vinylmesh, youv'e obviously been voting. You are a shining beacon of intelligence in a dark world.

reganovich

Simtech wrote: »

Yes. I understand the point. It seems fair to say though that our elected politicians could be doing a better job if we look at it objectively. This is probably true worldwide. I just wonder if there might be a better method of getting things done. If we elect a person who is then widely considered not to be performing (we might not have to look far for such a person) then it is safe to say that either our electoral process could take some improvement or we are idiots electing idiots. So which is it?

Were not idiots electing idiots...in your opinion elected officials are doing a terrible job...is your solution to sack them and appoint people with degrees? people who you deem to be qualified?... You cannot gauge a politicians performance objectively..nor can you gauge a teachers.

But why do you think that we the electorate are all idiots?
If thats the case why would you want to improve things for us plebs?

galwayrush

Certainly there should be standards, to be able to speak properly would be a good start.:rolleyes:

reganovich

galwayrush wrote: »

Certainly there should be standards, to be able to speak properly would be a good start.:rolleyes:

R0ot

Mark200 wrote: »

No, there should be no qualifications.

Idiots are only elected if idiots vote for them

/me looks at current elected people :rolleyes:

Simtech

reganovich wrote: »

Were not idiots electing idiots...in your opinion elected officials are doing a terrible job...is your solution to sack them and appoint people with degrees? people who you deem to be qualified?... You cannot gauge a politicians performance objectively..nor can you gauge a teachers.

But why do you think that we the electorate are all idiots?
If thats the case why would you want to improve things for us plebs?

I made no mention of degrees. I said qualifications and asked for expressions of opinion as to what those qualifications might be.

reganovich

Simtech wrote: »

I made no mention of degrees. I said qualifications and asked for expressions of opinion as to what those qualifications might be.

Well then imo there are no qualifications that you can use ...none at all.

Anyone can and should have the ability to get elected...thats the system and I hope it stays like that...

All equal under the law...

Terry

vinylmesh wrote: »

What happened my post :mad:?

Just because you don't like a post doesn't mean it's fair to delete it!

btw,

YORE MA is qualified to serve............ the dinner !

That's eight times in two days.

Do it again and I will ban you.

I mean if you ever do it again and not just in the next few days.

Simtech

reganovich wrote: »

Well then imo there are no qualifications that you can use ...none at all.

Anyone can and should have the ability to get elected...thats the system and I hope it stays like that...

All equal under the law...

What then qualifies the current crop?

Do you really believe any one can and should? The rapist just released from jail for instance?? The drug addicted gang member?? All equal eh?

nyarlothothep

reganovich wrote: »

Well then imo there are no qualifications that you can use ...none at all.

Anyone can and should have the ability to get elected...thats the system and I hope it stays like that...

All equal under the law...

This is the problem though for me, it turns into a popularity contest. It should be about substance, intellectual depth, ideas. The role entails responsibility, would you allow a surgeon to operate on you if they didn't have some form of qualification?

By having a qualification in areas related to running a country a politician would then have an theoretical/historical perspective on what they would be doing.

I don't think its an ideal situation, I dislike the hierarchical structure society is organized into but knowledge and education should be valued just as much as practical experience, as it allows one to appreciate the fundamentals of what they are doing.

Simtech

nyarlothothep wrote: »

This is the problem though for me, it turns into a popularity contest. It should be about substance, intellectual depth, ideas. The role entails responsibility, would you allow a surgeon to operate on you if they didn't have some form of qualification?

By having a qualification in areas related to running a country a politician would then have an theoretical/historical perspective on what they would be doing.

I don't think its an ideal situation, I dislike the hierarchical structure society is organized into but knowledge and education should be valued just as much as practical experience, as it allows one to appreciate the fundamentals of what they are doing.

Agreed. Thoughts on how this could be incorporated into the political process?

Phototoxin

well we dont have a democracy.. we cannot vote fort the members in our 2nd parlemtary house... only thouse who have gone to cetrain universities can.. totally undemocratic.

Secondly in ireland there is some stupid tradition of 'inhereting' seats that 'belong' to traditional parities.

Third its the county councils that put people forward and those aren't elected either. Closed system.

ejmaztec

We should get rid of the inbred ugly ones first, then decide what to do with the other two later on.

Fratton Fred

Don't you have to have to be related to Dev?

Tea-a-Maria

Phototoxin wrote: »

well we dont have a democracy.. we cannot vote fort the members in our 2nd parlemtary house... only thouse who have gone to cetrain universities can.. totally undemocratic.

Well..legislation was introduced to include colleges that were left out but it was never implemented. Not that I imagine many people lose sleep over not being able to vote in senators.:pac:

Terry

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Don't you have to have to be related to Dev?

Criticism from an English man.

How's the house of lords and the monarchy working out?

Simtech

Well at least we generated some wonderfully insightful and innovative proposals for future governnce :rolleyes:, rejoice, it's a new dawn.

Terry

Simtech wrote: »

Well at least we generated some wonderfully insightful and innovative proposals for future governnce :rolleyes:, rejoice, it's a new dawn.

Who are the "We" you refer to?
The Greeks or the Romans?

SimpleSam06

nyarlothothep wrote: »

By having a qualification in areas related to running a country a politician would then have an theoretical/historical perspective on what they would be doing.

As I understand it, and I could be mistaken here, there is already a hefty bias among elected representatives towards a legal/educational background. While these might well have the experience in both wading through paperwork and talking to large crowds of unruly or unwilling people, they are seriously not the kind of people you want running a country, as they have a tendency to look after the clique before they look after the electorate - in short, a country isn't a courtroom or a classroom.

Simtech

Simtech wrote: »

Are there/should there be minimum qualifications to become an elected representative?
If so, what are they/should they be?? It seems that any idiot can be elected? Of the idiots, for the idiots. Doesn't seem to make sense. Does a minimum standard exclude? Cannot anyone seek to achieve this standard? Should "The Party" seek to pay for their proposed electoral candidates to reach this standard and then put them forward for the decision of the people? Should we be electing people to positions in government rather than from particular constituencies?

Just to clarify, do you think our politicians should meet a certain minimum standard and what should that standard be?

Should we be asked to vote based on a list of candidates who are seeking election to a certain post in government as opposed to a list of candidates from a certain area. I believe Ireland to be small enough to allow such a system to be effective and that cronyism could be eliminated or at least made very difficult and obvious.

ejmaztec

I think that a good example would be FG announcing that Sean Kelly is going to be a candidate in the next EU elections. He's apparently Mrs. Kenny's cousin. I understand that he was a teacher (haven't a clue as to what he actually taught), and was also the GAA mouthpiece for a time.

Has anybody any idea as to what use he will be in Brussels? Will his election be a dead cert given that all of the GAA people will vote for him because of who he was and not what his capabilities are?

I've mentioned this situation in Politics, but got no input on it.

ejmaztec

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think that a good example would be FG announcing that Sean Kelly is going to be a candidate in the next EU elections. He's apparently Mrs. Kenny's cousin. I understand that he was a teacher (haven't a clue as to what he actually taught), and was also the GAA mouthpiece for a time.

Has anybody any idea as to what use he will be in Brussels? Will his election be a dead cert given that all of the GAA people will vote for him because of who he was and not what his capabilities are?

I've mentioned this situation in Politics, but got no input on it.

I'm having another tumbleweed moment.

Prof.Badass

Terry wrote: »

That's eight times in two days.

Do it again and I will ban you.

I mean if you ever do it again and not just in the next few days.

:mad:

you're just saying that coz you dissagree with my political views.

total abuse of power btw.