Another Election Reform Idea........

[rsmith6621]

Seeing as though that in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 Bushes campaign managers were also the Secretary of States of their states I think that new federal legislation should be adopted prohibiting this....Doesnt it seem like a conflict of interest....and further raise suspicions on any irregularity's....


What Are Your Thoughts.

[Boredtodeath]

1. While it sounds like an excellent idea

I'm afraid that it can never be actually implemented.

How do you forbid any human being from having an ideological perspective? On top of that, isn't it a denial of their constitutional right to form a political opinion?

Also, if you single out "election" officials, who's next? Judges? Sheriffs? Pollworkers?

A slippery slope I don't think we want to head down, honestly.

[iconoclastNYC]

3. LOL.

Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.

There are tons of restrictions on what constitute of conflict of interest in government and politics and this proposal isn't unlike the others.

Are you going to argue that it wasn't a conflict of interest for the state chairs of the Ohio and Flordia Bush campaign to be the top elections supervisors in thier respective states?

Please. Regulators can't own shares in companies they regulate, the same should apply to election supervisors. This is just clean government common sense.

[Boredtodeath]

4. Are you going to argue

that it was advantageous for the DEMS to have a DEM Secretary of State in Georgia in 2002?

Rigged elections are about power, not "conflicts of interest."

[iconoclastNYC]

9. Another logical fallacy.

Just because you can find a Democrat who was corrupt doesn't mean having conflict of interest laws in place for the top elections supervisor is a bad idea.

[iconoclastNYC]

10. Also.....the Ga Democrat

Wasn't a member of regulated campaign now was he/she? A bit of a differnece from what the OP is proposing.

[Warpy]

5. We're not talking about OPINION

We're talking about JOBS that create a CONFLICT OF INTEREST, and yes, that is what should be illegal.

Don't expect it in Jebbieland, though.

[Boredtodeath]

6. So, you're saying

that anyone involved in purchasing and implementing a voting system (ANY voting system) should be denied the right to a political opinion or vote?

Because, that's exactly what you are asking for.

I say again - this isn't about political ideology - it's about POWER. And both parties, hell, human beings of all political persuasion are subject to political ideology and usurption of the process.

[Warpy]

7. Read it again

We're talking about a state SOS who is ALSO a campaign manager.

Once again, slowly: that is TWO JOBS that provide a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Got it yet?

JOBS, not opinions.

Official conflict of interest, not mere bias.

I would be against this blatant conflict of interest by members of either party.

Get it?

[Boredtodeath]

8. I get it just fine. Now, perhaps you can try mine?

Do you really think a "title" changed the plans of Ken Blackwell or Katherine Harris?

That, somehow, becoming "Campaign Manager" affected whether or not they would steal the election for George Bush?

Are you trying to make that argument?

[iconoclastNYC]

11. Even if it creates an appearance of conflict of interest

It should be illegal.

THis is why judges recuse themself.

This is why Congress critters have to put stocks in blind trusts.

You just don't get it.

[Boredtodeath]

12. I DO get it

I'm still saying/arguing that a "title" has nothing to do with their actions. You can certainly try to pass such laws, but my guess is that it would be found an unconstitutional violation of free speech when tested in the first court.

We shouldn't be so short sighted. While the last 6 years have been a living hell and have done great damage to our country, passing laws prohibiting free speech will very likely come back to bite us in the ass when the Democrats take back control.

[iconoclastNYC]

13. It's not about title.

It's about the conflict of interest.

Conflict of interes laws don't violate the freedom of speech in terms of Judges or Congress, or regulators....this isn't about speech. This is about a conflict of interest. Holding two jobs where your vested interest conflict. IF you are taking a job as a public servant you agree to divest yourself of conflicts of interest, recuse yourself if neccesary, or put your holdings in blind trusts.

Your argument is a strawman.

Conflict of interest laws are are good government 101.

Democrat or Republiacn.....I want election supervisors free of any conflicts of interest. What you are basically advocating is....lets not do anything to limit corruption...we'll get back into office and we can be corrupt to help our side.

[Boredtodeath]

14. Not quite

I'm advocating we NOT become the party which limits free speech.

You know........kinda like when WE were in power and Bill Clinton and the Supreme Court legislated "free speech zones."

You might want to consider, VERY CAREFULLY, that you might just get what you wish for.

[iconoclastNYC]

2. Might be unconstitutional.

Doesn't the Constitution leave it up to the state to decide how to run thier elections? I think this would be a good thing to pass at the state level.

Ohio tried to get this done via initiative but it failed in a very sketchy election result.

(look up Reform Ohio Now) if you want to learn more.