Should there be a law?

Yes.

4 (17.4%)

No.

19 (82.6%)

Total Members Voted: 12

[bakerbaker]

"Should there be a law that prohibits politicians from voting for the office which they are seeking?"



A simple notion that surfaced as a tangent in the midst of conversation.  wondering what all you all in ftlbbsland think about it.


...
as if one vote ever made a difference, but what about the symbolism?
and if they are allowed to vote:
     would you consider it bad taste for a politician to vote for themselves in an election?
     would you consider it in good taste for a politician to abstain from voting at all?

[Selfish Gene]

Should there be a law that prohibits politicians from voting for the office which they are seeking to be elected?
No.

Should there be a law that prohibits politicians from voting for the office which they are seeking to be elected?
No.
 
Should there be a law that prohibits politicians from voting for the office which they are seeking to be elected?
No.
 
I answered "no" to the entire question as well, in order to be consistent with answer #1.
 

[bakerbaker]

if a politician vote for his/her-self...


are you more likely to perceive it as confidence or arrogance?

[AntonLee]

Should there be a law that prohibits politicians from voting for the office which they are seeking to be elected?
No.

Should there be a law that prohibits politicians from voting for the office which they are seeking to be elected?
No.

extremely this

[Selfish Gene]

if a politician vote for his/her-self...


are you more likely to perceive it as confidence or arrogance?

Neither.  I perceive it as making a show of endorsing the system.

[NHArticleTen]

http://www.last.fm/music/Firehouse/_/Oughta+Be+a+Law

[YixilTesiphon]

Ideally, aren't you always supposed to be voting for yourself?

[tanstaafl1981]

Should there be a law that prohibits politicians from voting for the office which they are seeking to be elected?
No.

Should there be a law that prohibits politicians from voting for the office which they are seeking to be elected?
No.
 
Should there be a law that prohibits politicians from voting for the office which they are seeking to be elected?
No.
 
I answered "no" to the entire question as well, in order to be consistent with answer #1.
 

this. again.

[Sam A. Robrin]

Laws restricting politicians are the ones I'm likely to carp least loudly about.
I think just to run for office, a candidate should be required to pass a tough, graduate-school-level exam on history, economics, etc., and spend two months incognito in a maximum-security prison.  And any form of malfeasance in public office should be treated as an act of treason, with appropriate penalties.  I'm still making up my mind about the oath of poverty, chastity, and obedience . . .

[MacFall]

Its kind of a tradition, the smiling politician getting his photo taken before he whisks the curtain closed. 

I don't mind it, and I don't think it should be prohibited.  I don't like it when things of a civilized nature are prohibited.  Ever. 

Just because nobody gets killed during the act itself doesn't mean that voting is civilized. An awful lot of people die as a result of the vote.

Voting is obfuscated and "legitimized" force, and for that reason it is all the more dangerous than naked aggression.

[MacFall]

Laws restricting politicians are the ones I'm likely to carp least loudly about.
I think just to run for office, a candidate should be required to pass a tough, graduate-school-level exam on history, economics, etc., and spend two months incognito in a maximum-security prison.  And any form of malfeasance in public office should be treated as an act of treason, with appropriate penalties.  I'm still making up my mind about the oath of poverty, chastity, and obedience . . .

I'd go more along these lines: Being a politician should carry a minimum penalty of public flogging.

[MacFall]

If we were in a pure and peaceful society that voted in leaders who cherished humanity and advanced the abilities of the nation, and used force to thwart only the largest of threats, you'd be all for it. 

In such a society, there would be no need for voting anyway, so I'd consider it to be an absurd waste of time. Which it is today, too, but a dangerous one as well.

But even putting that aside, no. I wouldn't support voting even to thwart the largest of threats, because voting would only get in the way of more competent people and more efficient means.

[MacFall]

Yeah, sure.  Because every need would be filled, and every situation is profitable. 

If you think that voting could ever fill any need effectively, you've been seriously misled. Unless the need in question involves theft or murder, of course.

[mikehz]

Why not? If more than one person is running, as is usually the case, they are just going to cancel each other out anyway.

I love this silly argument that was used against allowing women to vote: "They will either vote the same way as their husband or the opposite way. In the first case, it's like giving him two votes. In the second, it's like taking away his vote, since the two will cancel each other out."

[NHArticleTen]

Why not? If more than one person is running, as is usually the case, they are just going to cancel each other out anyway.

I love this silly argument that was used against allowing women to vote: "They will either vote the same way as their husband or the opposite way. In the first case, it's like giving him two votes. In the second, it's like taking away his vote, since the two will cancel each other out."

there is actually much "truth" to that concept...

hence the necessity to break up traditional family structures...at least for the slaves...