this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
40 points (76.3% liked)

Showerthoughts

29692 readers
801 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    1. NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    2. Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    3. Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct-----

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
vatlark@lemmy.world
forkball@lemmy.world
quinten@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
40
We should have elections with no candidates. (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 2 weeks ago by JamesStallion@sh.itjust.works to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

All us WEIRD (western educated industrialized rich democratic) countries seem to spend a really embarrassing amount of time talking about the pointless minutiae surrounding our candidates for office and their personal lives.

We are also prone to backing very crap candidates based on personality, rhetoric, appearance ie: things that have nothing to do with being a good executive or legislator.

I think we should ban names from the election process and just have each party submit their ideas in writing and let people vote based on those submissions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Illecors@lemmy.cafe 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That won't really work. Had an exact thing in an unofficial capacity - more along the lines of "answer the questions to see what party you align with most". The result - the biggest lying traitor shitbags were the match.

Declared views != actual views.

[–] MrPoopyButthole@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I guess the pandering people pleasing approaches would overly benefit from this design but it could be more realistic if you showed a percentage next to the answer of the likelihood that the party will follow through with the statement based on their previous claims and achievements. This would make the parties less willing to make false claims or go back on their promises once in power because it would reflect badly in the next election.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Who determines the percentage?

People have access to the information now to know who the liars are, but they choose to ignore it.

[–] MrPoopyButthole@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

I think it could be as simple as party x claims they will do thing a, b, c and then after their term in power you assess if they achieved those things. The parties who make the claims will need to back up those claims with real milestones that would become performance indicators of partial or full success. The milestones must be easy to assess and leave no room for interpretation. Just like in a legal contract, if you make the wording too vague and hard to interpret, then your contract won't be enforceable in court.