569
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
569 points (99.1% liked)
politics
18904 readers
3010 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
And this is why popular vote may not be a good way of choosing a sheriff. It produces some truly awful pick me candidates who are more interested in political power and grandstanding than serving their office.
Without a strong code of ethics backed up by the law people can get away with a lot of bullshit.
This guy should resign and if not then disbarred for his conduct. It boggles my mind that elected officials have no oversight. Instead he will probably face no repercussions for othering people and denigrating his office.
he won't resign and they will keep electing idiots like him. THEY are the problem, not the idiots that THEY vote in. the solutions are simple.
Honestly I would prefer it be an appointment but every election there should be a confidence vote where if at least 50% of people don't approve of them they get barred from office
That is an interesting proposal. I think we should spend a lot more time kicking around alternatives and then trying them out.
Surely the people who want these positions of power are rarely the ones that should have them.
I don't buy that whole trope about how the people that deserve power are the people that don't want it. That may be true for such a person at first, but if they're the sort of good person who can recognize policy failures and offer popular solutions, at a certain point it becomes them to fight against those policy failures. And if that person recognizes that public office is the best way to do it, wanting to run for office would be a perfectly natural desire.
For sure, I mean I get what you are saying.
You can't deny that powerful positions attract bad actors though. How we deal with that is probably more important than sweeping generalizations like the one I made.
I like it being an elected position, rather than the police or local government appointing someone. That way if someone is egregiously against the grain of their community the community can act.
However, like so many elected positions, there should be real minimum qualifications to get on the ballot, like a 4 year degree or equivalent experience in a related field, a neutral third party psych eval, etc.