A lot of those administrative positions used to be determined by patronage. You go to the appropriate politician and say "Hey, I would love to be tax collector for Bumfuck, Indiana, mind appointing me?" The guy agrees, and now you're committed to voting for him or his party because you know you'll get tossed out as soon as the opposition wins.
Given that, democracy is a better alternative.
Ideally you use a robust civil service to hire and promote the best candidates, but people like democracy enough that trying to tell someone that they don't get to vote for a given position anymore won't go over very well.
I think pointing to this, let's be honest here, extremely weird edge case as proof of any point against small-time elections, is an over-reaction.
The main issue with holding elections for things like this are: the vetting process for an election like county clerk is likely extremely small, because no one cares who their county clerk is. Applying for a position at the DMV is probably more scrutinous than being elected as county clerk. So when something like this happens, it sucks and there's both usually nothing you can do about it, and nothing could be done to prevent it, other than try and care about every single election that's held ever, and that's exhausting and silly.
Besides her being in jail for contempt is proof the system works. Although I think the local legislature should be in jail also/instead, for not impeaching her.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yet, somehow, this kind of things don't actually happens in the vast majority of places where this is not an elected position.
Citation please. I don't think you know whether the "vast majority" of county clerks are elected or appointed.
Let me introduce you to a new concept. It's called "the rest of the world". We have property too!
It's an elected position in Canada. It looks to be the equivalent to an appointed judgeship in the UK, but I'd need more time to be sure that the position is similar to say for certain. It would take some time, but my quick Googling shows the equivalent jobs are pretty big deals in the rest of Western Europe, but I can't say what the mechanism is for choosing them.
I'll ask you for a citation regarding it being an elected position in Canada, 'cause that's new to me. They are position with a similar title, but those are more like "mayor", and don't actually do much about property registry or marriage licences.
A lot of those administrative positions used to be determined by patronage. You go to the appropriate politician and say "Hey, I would love to be tax collector for Bumfuck, Indiana, mind appointing me?" The guy agrees, and now you're committed to voting for him or his party because you know you'll get tossed out as soon as the opposition wins.
Given that, democracy is a better alternative.
Ideally you use a robust civil service to hire and promote the best candidates, but people like democracy enough that trying to tell someone that they don't get to vote for a given position anymore won't go over very well.
It's also important to note that every developed nation invests the equivalent position with authority and independence, either through election, judge-level appointment, or federalized ministry level authority. These are the type of positions that are going to insulated from easy firing all over the world.
Besides her being in jail for contempt is proof the system works. Although I think the local legislature should be in jail also/instead, for not impeaching her.
Are they even in session?
Is that even applicable for local legislatures? I know mine is year round. Besides emergency sessions exist for reasons like these.
I wouldn't be surprised if she got paid time off in jail; government benefits are usually pretty good
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Besides her being in jail for contempt is proof the system works. Although I think the local legislature should be in jail also/instead, for not impeaching her.
Are they even in session?
Is that even applicable for local legislatures? I know mine is year round. Besides emergency sessions exist for reasons like these.
spool's state legislature meets for like 140 days every two years.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an elected position and why it's stupid.
A county clerk has a tremendous amount of power? Geez, then we wouldn't want them beholden only to a small local powerbase that gains direct benefit from any shenanigans they might get up to then, would we? I mean, god, imagine what a county clerk in a mostly white but with a black minority population could do to said minority population if we elected that position!
this is also silly
Shall we not elect anyone in a county where there are minorities present?
How is it silly spool32? Like, do explain how locally elected positions are not completely amenable to easy corruption?
Cause Phillishere's entire bullshit argument is that electing them is somehow a protection against corruption in that office and I've given a simple example of how, no, it is not.
It's better than appointees. All you're doing is arguing that corruption exists. yes it does! Any official can be corrupt. Given that, we should prefer the democratic way of picking leaders.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an elected position and why it's stupid.
A county clerk has a tremendous amount of power? Geez, then we wouldn't want them beholden only to a small local powerbase that gains direct benefit from any shenanigans they might get up to then, would we? I mean, god, imagine what a county clerk in a mostly white but with a black minority population could do to said minority population if we elected that position!
this is also silly
Shall we not elect anyone in a county where there are minorities present?
How is it silly spool32? Like, do explain how locally elected positions are not completely amenable to easy corruption?
Cause Phillishere's entire bullshit argument is that electing them is somehow a protection against corruption in that office and I've given a simple example of how, no, it is not.
It's better than appointees. All you're doing is arguing that corruption exists. yes it does! Any official can be corrupt. Given that, we should prefer the democratic way of picking leaders.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an elected position and why it's stupid.
A county clerk has a tremendous amount of power? Geez, then we wouldn't want them beholden only to a small local powerbase that gains direct benefit from any shenanigans they might get up to then, would we? I mean, god, imagine what a county clerk in a mostly white but with a black minority population could do to said minority population if we elected that position!
So Orleans Parish was one of the last ones to start issuing marriage licenses in Louisiana. The reason why? Here you have to go directly through the clerk's office which is run by the state, with appointed leaders. Corruption is corruption and going to find its way to any situation regardless.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an elected position and why it's stupid.
A county clerk has a tremendous amount of power? Geez, then we wouldn't want them beholden only to a small local powerbase that gains direct benefit from any shenanigans they might get up to then, would we? I mean, god, imagine what a county clerk in a mostly white but with a black minority population could do to said minority population if we elected that position!
this is also silly
Shall we not elect anyone in a county where there are minorities present?
How is it silly spool32? Like, do explain how locally elected positions are not completely amenable to easy corruption?
Cause Phillishere's entire bullshit argument is that electing them is somehow a protection against corruption in that office and I've given a simple example of how, no, it is not.
It's better than appointees. All you're doing is arguing that corruption exists. yes it does! Any official can be corrupt. Given that, we should prefer the democratic way of picking leaders.
No, it's not. For exactly the reasons I stated. It's still prone to corruption. It's prone to worse corruption because those the elceted official are beholden to are local groups or individuals, who are more likely to have a direct interest in the things said Clerk can do with their position and likely more influence within the area. And it makes targeting these people for improper behaviour harder. There's no actual gains and all sorts of new downsides.
We shouldn't prefer democratically picking these kind of positions. Same thing with Sheriffs and Judges and all sorts of positions with lots of power in small areas. It's a recipe for abuse.
I think pointing to this, let's be honest here, extremely weird edge case as proof of any point against small-time elections, is an over-reaction.
The main issue with holding elections for things like this are: the vetting process for an election like county clerk is likely extremely small, because no one cares who their county clerk is. Applying for a position at the DMV is probably more scrutinous than being elected as county clerk. So when something like this happens, it sucks and there's both usually nothing you can do about it, and nothing could be done to prevent it, other than try and care about every single election that's held ever, and that's exhausting and silly.
Indeed. No one except perhaps those with a wedge issue to push or with a vested interest in a certain individual getting a position of local power. It's a recipe for corruption and graft and also for a lack of accountability. Because, you know, no one does anything about it. The democratic process as a way to check corruption doesn't work if no one is paying attention.
So conservatives on Twitter are saying its the beginning of a holy war and the religious freedom must be defended.
I expect any radical actions by such self-appointed religious martyrs will occur via twitter and blogs because damn those armchairs are just too comfy to get up from.
How terrible the oppression of our powerless and disenfranchised class of middle-class white Christians is
Late to this, but your avatar goes wonderfully with this statement :biggrin:
Five out of six deputy clerks in Rowan County, Ky., have agreed to issue same-sex marriage licenses after a judge found a Kentucky clerk in contempt of court and ordered her to jail for refusing to grant the licenses.
The lone holdout among the deputy's clerk is the clerk's son, Nathan, according to The Associated Press.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
No, the problem is that elected officials are supposed to both represent the people and carry out their will. Carrying out the will, in this case, means following the laws written by the legislative branch and interpreted by the judicial branch. It does not mean applying your own agenda and ignoring the duties of your office.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
No, the problem is that elected officials are supposed to both represent the people and carry out their will. Carrying out the will, in this case, means following the laws written by the legislative branch and interpreted by the judicial branch. It does not mean applying your own agenda and ignoring the duties of your office.
Kentucky I believe had a vote to outlaw gay marriage that was the will of her constituents.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an elected position and why it's stupid.
A county clerk has a tremendous amount of power? Geez, then we wouldn't want them beholden only to a small local powerbase that gains direct benefit from any shenanigans they might get up to then, would we? I mean, god, imagine what a county clerk in a mostly white but with a black minority population could do to said minority population if we elected that position!
this is also silly
Shall we not elect anyone in a county where there are minorities present?
How is it silly spool32? Like, do explain how locally elected positions are not completely amenable to easy corruption?
Cause Phillishere's entire bullshit argument is that electing them is somehow a protection against corruption in that office and I've given a simple example of how, no, it is not.
It's better than appointees. All you're doing is arguing that corruption exists. yes it does! Any official can be corrupt. Given that, we should prefer the democratic way of picking leaders.
No, it's not. For exactly the reasons I stated. It's still prone to corruption. It's prone to worse corruption because those the elceted official are beholden to are local groups or individuals, who are more likely to have a direct interest in the things said Clerk can do with their position and likely more influence within the area. And it makes targeting these people for improper behaviour harder. There's no actual gains and all sorts of new downsides.
We shouldn't prefer democratically picking these kind of positions. Same thing with Sheriffs and Judges and all sorts of positions with lots of power in small areas. It's a recipe for abuse.
The problem is not that appointment or election corrupts those positions. It's that those positions have lots of power in small areas, and thus are prone to abuse.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
I highly doubt the KY legislature would hold a special session just to deal with Kim Davis. Special sessions cost money, and as far as they're concerned it's not an important enough issue to go to all that trouble.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+1
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I highly doubt the KY legislature would hold a special session just to deal with Kim Davis. Special sessions cost money, and as far as they're concerned it's not an important enough issue to go to all that trouble.
fwiw name one special session where a legislative body actually cared about how much money they were wasting
I don't understand why it needs to be by appointment or elected. It's literally just a clerical position. Have it be a hired position separate from political office like plenty of other places.
+17
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
I highly doubt the KY legislature would hold a special session just to deal with Kim Davis. Special sessions cost money, and as far as they're concerned it's not an important enough issue to go to all that trouble.
fwiw name one special session where a legislative body actually cared about how much money they were wasting
I should have said time and also money. They're not going to want to change up whatever they've got going on when the legislatures not in session just to hold impeachment proceedings on a county clerk.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I highly doubt the KY legislature would hold a special session just to deal with Kim Davis. Special sessions cost money, and as far as they're concerned it's not an important enough issue to go to all that trouble.
fwiw name one special session where a legislative body actually cared about how much money they were wasting
I should have said time and also money. They're not going to want to change up whatever they've got going on when the legislatures not in session just to hold impeachment proceedings on a county clerk.
And again they agree with her.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I highly doubt the KY legislature would hold a special session just to deal with Kim Davis. Special sessions cost money, and as far as they're concerned it's not an important enough issue to go to all that trouble.
fwiw name one special session where a legislative body actually cared about how much money they were wasting
I should have said time and also money. They're not going to want to change up whatever they've got going on when the legislatures not in session just to hold impeachment proceedings on a county clerk.
And again they agree with her.
Or at the very least they don't want to be seen publicly disagreeing with her.
Do you want to get on the fundy/fox radar as the guy that impeached "a god fearing county clerk defending the sanctity of marriage"?
The attack ads in 2016 write themselves, as do the fundraising speeches.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Maybe I missed this but why doesn't someone fire her? Is her position elected?
It is, thus highlighting the idiocy of electing low level bureaucrats.
disagree. The other option is rampant cronyism.
Well, that or a fully independent Civil Service with strong labor and Due Process protections ensuring that you must be fired for sufficient cause rather than at will.
Also, it's not as though patronage is impossible in an electoral capacity. ~58% of all State legislature districts were run unopposed in the Primary and only slightly less in the General. Almost certainly due to both gerrymandering and a gentleman's agreement about what races to contest by the State Party bigwigs.
Yup, if this was happening in Texas the governor would need to call an emergency special session to impeach her.
This is actually a good example of why I'm glad we have more frequent sessions than Texas. Because I remember us having a disagreement about that in another thread. Special Sessions aren't cheap, but if you meet every month or two dealing with something like this can just wait until the next scheduled meeting without allowing mal/nonfeasance to occur for such long stretches of time unaddressed.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an elected position and why it's stupid.
A county clerk has a tremendous amount of power? Geez, then we wouldn't want them beholden only to a small local powerbase that gains direct benefit from any shenanigans they might get up to then, would we? I mean, god, imagine what a county clerk in a mostly white but with a black minority population could do to said minority population if we elected that position!
this is also silly
Shall we not elect anyone in a county where there are minorities present?
How is it silly spool32? Like, do explain how locally elected positions are not completely amenable to easy corruption?
Cause Phillishere's entire bullshit argument is that electing them is somehow a protection against corruption in that office and I've given a simple example of how, no, it is not.
It's better than appointees. All you're doing is arguing that corruption exists. yes it does! Any official can be corrupt. Given that, we should prefer the democratic way of picking leaders.
No, it's not. For exactly the reasons I stated. It's still prone to corruption. It's prone to worse corruption because those the elected official are beholden to are local groups or individuals, who are more likely to have a direct interest in the things said Clerk can do with their position and likely more influence within the area. And it makes targeting these people for improper behaviour harder. There's no actual gains and all sorts of new downsides.
We shouldn't prefer democratically picking these kind of positions. Same thing with Sheriffs and Judges and all sorts of positions with lots of power in small areas. It's a recipe for abuse.
The points you raise don't really address the issue of independence from undue influence by higher ups. Nixon was only able to perform the Saturday Night Massacre because the Attorney General is a political appointee who serves at the pleasure of the President.
Personally I would prefer to see County Clerk be a Civil Service job (and an end to judicial elections with strong protections for the appointment process) but this particular case really doesn't speak to the methodology of filling its role. The worst case of it being an elected position and the Legislature abandoning its obligation to impeach due to mal/nonfeasance is that the Judiciary would act to find her in contempt and either has an injunction against her acting/retaliating against employees or removes her from the position to allow a subordinate to act in the role, which oh look I just described what actually happened.
All this is pretty similar to what we saw after desegregation. Hopefully it won't get that bad.
Actually, this is remarkably dissimilar to what happened after desegregation. Amazingly so. Like, it is philosophically obviously akin to Loving or Brown and yet so far the only form of 'massive resistance' to happen is, like, 4 people refusing to do their job until they've been finally forced to do it. If this was anything like desegregation it wouldn't be the Marshall Service arresting a county clerk, it'd be the National Guard arresting Governors.
I highly doubt the KY legislature would hold a special session just to deal with Kim Davis. Special sessions cost money, and as far as they're concerned it's not an important enough issue to go to all that trouble.
fwiw name one special session where a legislative body actually cared about how much money they were wasting
I should have said time and also money. They're not going to want to change up whatever they've got going on when the legislatures not in session just to hold impeachment proceedings on a county clerk.
And again they agree with her.
Or at the very least they don't want to be seen publicly disagreeing with her.
Do you want to get on the fundy/fox radar as the guy that impeached "a god fearing county clerk defending the sanctity of marriage"?
The attack ads in 2016 write themselves, as do the fundraising speeches.
Voice Vote with no record of who said what. Everyone gets plausible deniability.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an elected position and why it's stupid.
A county clerk has a tremendous amount of power? Geez, then we wouldn't want them beholden only to a small local powerbase that gains direct benefit from any shenanigans they might get up to then, would we? I mean, god, imagine what a county clerk in a mostly white but with a black minority population could do to said minority population if we elected that position!
this is also silly
Shall we not elect anyone in a county where there are minorities present?
How is it silly spool32? Like, do explain how locally elected positions are not completely amenable to easy corruption?
Cause Phillishere's entire bullshit argument is that electing them is somehow a protection against corruption in that office and I've given a simple example of how, no, it is not.
It's better than appointees. All you're doing is arguing that corruption exists. yes it does! Any official can be corrupt. Given that, we should prefer the democratic way of picking leaders.
No, it's not. For exactly the reasons I stated. It's still prone to corruption. It's prone to worse corruption because those the elected official are beholden to are local groups or individuals, who are more likely to have a direct interest in the things said Clerk can do with their position and likely more influence within the area. And it makes targeting these people for improper behaviour harder. There's no actual gains and all sorts of new downsides.
We shouldn't prefer democratically picking these kind of positions. Same thing with Sheriffs and Judges and all sorts of positions with lots of power in small areas. It's a recipe for abuse.
The points you raise don't really address the issue of independence from undue influence by higher ups. Nixon was only able to perform the Saturday Night Massacre because the Attorney General is a political appointee who serves at the pleasure of the President.
Personally I would prefer to see County Clerk be a Civil Service job (and an end to judicial elections with strong protections for the appointment process) but this particular case really doesn't speak to the methodology of filling its role. The worst case of it being an elected position and the Legislature abandoning its obligation to impeach due to mal/nonfeasance is that the Judiciary would act to find her in contempt and either has an injunction against her acting/retaliating against employees or removes her from the position to allow a subordinate to act in the role, which oh look I just described what actually happened.
It does. The point is that undue influence from higher ups is far less likely at this level of position then undue influence from local interests.
A civil service job is actually exactly what I'm thinking too. I'm just pointing out that elections are not better for removing corruption from the process and in many ways are worse.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an elected position and why it's stupid.
A county clerk has a tremendous amount of power? Geez, then we wouldn't want them beholden only to a small local powerbase that gains direct benefit from any shenanigans they might get up to then, would we? I mean, god, imagine what a county clerk in a mostly white but with a black minority population could do to said minority population if we elected that position!
this is also silly
Shall we not elect anyone in a county where there are minorities present?
How is it silly spool32? Like, do explain how locally elected positions are not completely amenable to easy corruption?
Cause Phillishere's entire bullshit argument is that electing them is somehow a protection against corruption in that office and I've given a simple example of how, no, it is not.
It's better than appointees. All you're doing is arguing that corruption exists. yes it does! Any official can be corrupt. Given that, we should prefer the democratic way of picking leaders.
No, it's not. For exactly the reasons I stated. It's still prone to corruption. It's prone to worse corruption because those the elected official are beholden to are local groups or individuals, who are more likely to have a direct interest in the things said Clerk can do with their position and likely more influence within the area. And it makes targeting these people for improper behaviour harder. There's no actual gains and all sorts of new downsides.
We shouldn't prefer democratically picking these kind of positions. Same thing with Sheriffs and Judges and all sorts of positions with lots of power in small areas. It's a recipe for abuse.
The points you raise don't really address the issue of independence from undue influence by higher ups. Nixon was only able to perform the Saturday Night Massacre because the Attorney General is a political appointee who serves at the pleasure of the President.
Personally I would prefer to see County Clerk be a Civil Service job (and an end to judicial elections with strong protections for the appointment process) but this particular case really doesn't speak to the methodology of filling its role. The worst case of it being an elected position and the Legislature abandoning its obligation to impeach due to mal/nonfeasance is that the Judiciary would act to find her in contempt and either has an injunction against her acting/retaliating against employees or removes her from the position to allow a subordinate to act in the role, which oh look I just described what actually happened.
It does.
Assertions aren't arguments. How does it address that problem?
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an elected position and why it's stupid.
A county clerk has a tremendous amount of power? Geez, then we wouldn't want them beholden only to a small local powerbase that gains direct benefit from any shenanigans they might get up to then, would we? I mean, god, imagine what a county clerk in a mostly white but with a black minority population could do to said minority population if we elected that position!
this is also silly
Shall we not elect anyone in a county where there are minorities present?
How is it silly spool32? Like, do explain how locally elected positions are not completely amenable to easy corruption?
Cause Phillishere's entire bullshit argument is that electing them is somehow a protection against corruption in that office and I've given a simple example of how, no, it is not.
It's better than appointees. All you're doing is arguing that corruption exists. yes it does! Any official can be corrupt. Given that, we should prefer the democratic way of picking leaders.
No, it's not. For exactly the reasons I stated. It's still prone to corruption. It's prone to worse corruption because those the elected official are beholden to are local groups or individuals, who are more likely to have a direct interest in the things said Clerk can do with their position and likely more influence within the area. And it makes targeting these people for improper behaviour harder. There's no actual gains and all sorts of new downsides.
We shouldn't prefer democratically picking these kind of positions. Same thing with Sheriffs and Judges and all sorts of positions with lots of power in small areas. It's a recipe for abuse.
The points you raise don't really address the issue of independence from undue influence by higher ups. Nixon was only able to perform the Saturday Night Massacre because the Attorney General is a political appointee who serves at the pleasure of the President.
Personally I would prefer to see County Clerk be a Civil Service job (and an end to judicial elections with strong protections for the appointment process) but this particular case really doesn't speak to the methodology of filling its role. The worst case of it being an elected position and the Legislature abandoning its obligation to impeach due to mal/nonfeasance is that the Judiciary would act to find her in contempt and either has an injunction against her acting/retaliating against employees or removes her from the position to allow a subordinate to act in the role, which oh look I just described what actually happened.
It does.
Assertions aren't arguments. How does it address that problem?
Maybe next time read past the first sentence? I literally explained how it does in the next one.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an elected position and why it's stupid.
A county clerk has a tremendous amount of power? Geez, then we wouldn't want them beholden only to a small local powerbase that gains direct benefit from any shenanigans they might get up to then, would we? I mean, god, imagine what a county clerk in a mostly white but with a black minority population could do to said minority population if we elected that position!
this is also silly
Shall we not elect anyone in a county where there are minorities present?
How is it silly spool32? Like, do explain how locally elected positions are not completely amenable to easy corruption?
Cause Phillishere's entire bullshit argument is that electing them is somehow a protection against corruption in that office and I've given a simple example of how, no, it is not.
It's better than appointees. All you're doing is arguing that corruption exists. yes it does! Any official can be corrupt. Given that, we should prefer the democratic way of picking leaders.
No, it's not. For exactly the reasons I stated. It's still prone to corruption. It's prone to worse corruption because those the elected official are beholden to are local groups or individuals, who are more likely to have a direct interest in the things said Clerk can do with their position and likely more influence within the area. And it makes targeting these people for improper behaviour harder. There's no actual gains and all sorts of new downsides.
We shouldn't prefer democratically picking these kind of positions. Same thing with Sheriffs and Judges and all sorts of positions with lots of power in small areas. It's a recipe for abuse.
The points you raise don't really address the issue of independence from undue influence by higher ups. Nixon was only able to perform the Saturday Night Massacre because the Attorney General is a political appointee who serves at the pleasure of the President.
Personally I would prefer to see County Clerk be a Civil Service job (and an end to judicial elections with strong protections for the appointment process) but this particular case really doesn't speak to the methodology of filling its role. The worst case of it being an elected position and the Legislature abandoning its obligation to impeach due to mal/nonfeasance is that the Judiciary would act to find her in contempt and either has an injunction against her acting/retaliating against employees or removes her from the position to allow a subordinate to act in the role, which oh look I just described what actually happened.
It does.
Assertions aren't arguments. How does it address that problem?
Maybe next time read past the first sentence? I literally explained how it does in the next one.
Yes but making someone electable makes it harder to get rid of them. Which is the problem.
It's also the solution in other areas. We don't long for a dictator because we've had examples of poor elected presidents. In this case, she's abusing the authority and power granted by her office, but her ability to abuse it so egregiously also shows that the authority is very real.
A county clerk actually has a tremendous amount of power, moreso than most local officials. If you don't believe that, consider what would happen if you went to the county seat and found out that your property somehow lost a half acre on the back half and the only existing official records show that it never had that half acre in the first place.
Preserving the integrity of deeds and records isn't that exciting, but it's one of the core functions of government. And, as we see here, abuse of that function can have wide-ranging consequences.
Yes, but that's got nothing to do with it being an elected position and why it's stupid.
A county clerk has a tremendous amount of power? Geez, then we wouldn't want them beholden only to a small local powerbase that gains direct benefit from any shenanigans they might get up to then, would we? I mean, god, imagine what a county clerk in a mostly white but with a black minority population could do to said minority population if we elected that position!
this is also silly
Shall we not elect anyone in a county where there are minorities present?
How is it silly spool32? Like, do explain how locally elected positions are not completely amenable to easy corruption?
Cause Phillishere's entire bullshit argument is that electing them is somehow a protection against corruption in that office and I've given a simple example of how, no, it is not.
It's better than appointees. All you're doing is arguing that corruption exists. yes it does! Any official can be corrupt. Given that, we should prefer the democratic way of picking leaders.
No, it's not. For exactly the reasons I stated. It's still prone to corruption. It's prone to worse corruption because those the elected official are beholden to are local groups or individuals, who are more likely to have a direct interest in the things said Clerk can do with their position and likely more influence within the area. And it makes targeting these people for improper behaviour harder. There's no actual gains and all sorts of new downsides.
We shouldn't prefer democratically picking these kind of positions. Same thing with Sheriffs and Judges and all sorts of positions with lots of power in small areas. It's a recipe for abuse.
The points you raise don't really address the issue of independence from undue influence by higher ups. Nixon was only able to perform the Saturday Night Massacre because the Attorney General is a political appointee who serves at the pleasure of the President.
Personally I would prefer to see County Clerk be a Civil Service job (and an end to judicial elections with strong protections for the appointment process) but this particular case really doesn't speak to the methodology of filling its role. The worst case of it being an elected position and the Legislature abandoning its obligation to impeach due to mal/nonfeasance is that the Judiciary would act to find her in contempt and either has an injunction against her acting/retaliating against employees or removes her from the position to allow a subordinate to act in the role, which oh look I just described what actually happened.
It does.
Assertions aren't arguments. How does it address that problem?
Maybe next time read past the first sentence? I literally explained how it does in the next one.
Yeesh.
You really didn't. And still haven't.
I did. You should, again, go back and read past the first two words. It generally helps.
To repeat, independence from higher ups (the given reason for why electing these positions is good) is not anywhere near as big an issue as those the "solution" creates.
Again, the argument was, literally, "It's better than appointees." and this is, as I have argued, not at all true. And also, you know, directly addresses the argument, even though you continue to falsely claim it doesn't.
Moving on, Mike Huckabee is even more terrible then you thought:
When people of conviction fight for what's right they often pay a price, but if they don't and we surrender, we will pay a far greater price for bowing to the false God of judicial supremacy. Government is not God. No man - and certainly no unelected lawyer - has the right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature's God.
Posts
Given that, democracy is a better alternative.
Ideally you use a robust civil service to hire and promote the best candidates, but people like democracy enough that trying to tell someone that they don't get to vote for a given position anymore won't go over very well.
The main issue with holding elections for things like this are: the vetting process for an election like county clerk is likely extremely small, because no one cares who their county clerk is. Applying for a position at the DMV is probably more scrutinous than being elected as county clerk. So when something like this happens, it sucks and there's both usually nothing you can do about it, and nothing could be done to prevent it, other than try and care about every single election that's held ever, and that's exhausting and silly.
Are they even in session?
It's also important to note that every developed nation invests the equivalent position with authority and independence, either through election, judge-level appointment, or federalized ministry level authority. These are the type of positions that are going to insulated from easy firing all over the world.
Is that even applicable for local legislatures? I know mine is year round. Besides emergency sessions exist for reasons like these.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Plus it might be a legal requirement, depending on her employment status and local and state laws.
spool's state legislature meets for like 140 days every two years.
I don't agree for judicial positions
I agree with you on this.
So Orleans Parish was one of the last ones to start issuing marriage licenses in Louisiana. The reason why? Here you have to go directly through the clerk's office which is run by the state, with appointed leaders. Corruption is corruption and going to find its way to any situation regardless.
No, it's not. For exactly the reasons I stated. It's still prone to corruption. It's prone to worse corruption because those the elceted official are beholden to are local groups or individuals, who are more likely to have a direct interest in the things said Clerk can do with their position and likely more influence within the area. And it makes targeting these people for improper behaviour harder. There's no actual gains and all sorts of new downsides.
We shouldn't prefer democratically picking these kind of positions. Same thing with Sheriffs and Judges and all sorts of positions with lots of power in small areas. It's a recipe for abuse.
Indeed. No one except perhaps those with a wedge issue to push or with a vested interest in a certain individual getting a position of local power. It's a recipe for corruption and graft and also for a lack of accountability. Because, you know, no one does anything about it. The democratic process as a way to check corruption doesn't work if no one is paying attention.
Late to this, but your avatar goes wonderfully with this statement :biggrin:
But elected offices were supposed to immunize local government from graft, nepotism, and cronyism.
Only big government can fail us.
Small local government can only be failed by the people.
No, the problem is that elected officials are supposed to both represent the people and carry out their will. Carrying out the will, in this case, means following the laws written by the legislative branch and interpreted by the judicial branch. It does not mean applying your own agenda and ignoring the duties of your office.
Kentucky I believe had a vote to outlaw gay marriage that was the will of her constituents.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The problem is not that appointment or election corrupts those positions. It's that those positions have lots of power in small areas, and thus are prone to abuse.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
fwiw name one special session where a legislative body actually cared about how much money they were wasting
I should have said time and also money. They're not going to want to change up whatever they've got going on when the legislatures not in session just to hold impeachment proceedings on a county clerk.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
And again they agree with her.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Or at the very least they don't want to be seen publicly disagreeing with her.
Do you want to get on the fundy/fox radar as the guy that impeached "a god fearing county clerk defending the sanctity of marriage"?
The attack ads in 2016 write themselves, as do the fundraising speeches.
Well, that or a fully independent Civil Service with strong labor and Due Process protections ensuring that you must be fired for sufficient cause rather than at will.
Also, it's not as though patronage is impossible in an electoral capacity. ~58% of all State legislature districts were run unopposed in the Primary and only slightly less in the General. Almost certainly due to both gerrymandering and a gentleman's agreement about what races to contest by the State Party bigwigs.
This is actually a good example of why I'm glad we have more frequent sessions than Texas. Because I remember us having a disagreement about that in another thread. Special Sessions aren't cheap, but if you meet every month or two dealing with something like this can just wait until the next scheduled meeting without allowing mal/nonfeasance to occur for such long stretches of time unaddressed.
Or they want to impose new restrictions on abortion. But firing some clerk who's refusing to do her job at all? Nah that's hard work bra.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The points you raise don't really address the issue of independence from undue influence by higher ups. Nixon was only able to perform the Saturday Night Massacre because the Attorney General is a political appointee who serves at the pleasure of the President.
Personally I would prefer to see County Clerk be a Civil Service job (and an end to judicial elections with strong protections for the appointment process) but this particular case really doesn't speak to the methodology of filling its role. The worst case of it being an elected position and the Legislature abandoning its obligation to impeach due to mal/nonfeasance is that the Judiciary would act to find her in contempt and either has an injunction against her acting/retaliating against employees or removes her from the position to allow a subordinate to act in the role, which oh look I just described what actually happened.
Actually, this is remarkably dissimilar to what happened after desegregation. Amazingly so. Like, it is philosophically obviously akin to Loving or Brown and yet so far the only form of 'massive resistance' to happen is, like, 4 people refusing to do their job until they've been finally forced to do it. If this was anything like desegregation it wouldn't be the Marshall Service arresting a county clerk, it'd be the National Guard arresting Governors.
This is a beautiful mark of progress.
Voice Vote with no record of who said what. Everyone gets plausible deniability.
It does. The point is that undue influence from higher ups is far less likely at this level of position then undue influence from local interests.
A civil service job is actually exactly what I'm thinking too. I'm just pointing out that elections are not better for removing corruption from the process and in many ways are worse.
Assertions aren't arguments. How does it address that problem?
Maybe next time read past the first sentence? I literally explained how it does in the next one.
Yeesh.
You really didn't. And still haven't.
I did. You should, again, go back and read past the first two words. It generally helps.
To repeat, independence from higher ups (the given reason for why electing these positions is good) is not anywhere near as big an issue as those the "solution" creates.
Again, the argument was, literally, "It's better than appointees." and this is, as I have argued, not at all true. And also, you know, directly addresses the argument, even though you continue to falsely claim it doesn't.
Yup, he went there.