Should we hide the identities of presidential runners?

[Sensei]

To become f.e.CIA agent (or member of other national agencies) you need to pass through lie detector test,

while to become president, you don't have to.

Any spy can become president, while just extremely good one can be agent.

Sorry, I could not resist, but find it quite ridiculous. Up-side-down situation.

CIA agent has a more important position than president.. ?

 

The problem with crime in this instance is that we break the law so regularly in little things, like speed limits or turning across double yellow lines, or a friendly game of poker for money with your buddies, or jaywalking, or sharing your prescription Tylenol with your spouse.

I don't think so these are crimes. In my sense of these words. Maybe I should use felony instead? Or even planned felony?

 

Many politicians said in campaign, or interview, that they were f.e. smoking marijuana.

And apparently it didn't influence their chance to being elected.

Reverse, part of people thought, cool guy

 

If politician drive a car, and hit other car, and there are people dead. In democratic country it ends up in instant political death..

But if he/she would hit and run, while there are dead (or hurt) people.

Even if police would find car, he/she can refuse to be investigated by police (immunity) etc.

I would like to know whether he/she did it or not..

 

I told you in previous post: fear from being detected during examination would filter out anybody who has something (serious) to hide. Tiny meaningless things don't need hiding.

 

I completely understand resistance of politicians from this idea: they have many to hide..

Edited February 3, 2016 by Sensei

[iNow]

Can't believe we're still talking about using ridiculous polygraphs: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=186441

[Phi for All]

I don't think so these are crimes. In my sense of these words. Maybe I should use felony instead? Or even planned felony?

 

You miss my point. You only quoted part of it. It doesn't matter if you think of these as crimes or felonies (sharing prescription drugs IS a felony, and in some states so is illegal gambling with your buddies). It matters what the person being screened thinks of as crime.

 

My real point is that you're going to run out of specific questions for the candidate, and you're eventually going to ask him if he's told you about all the crimes he's committed. He may not remember anything more specific, but because of the nature of the question, he may think there might be more, indicating a falsehood, and thus you think you catch him lying about deeds he can't tell us about, which looks even more suspicious.

 

I think the real problem we have in this context is far too much vagueness about a specific political campaign. If politicians in the US were held to specifics about their policies and the bills they plan to implement or support, we wouldn't need to trust them, we could kick them out or praise them on merit. I don't think the lie detector idea solves enough problems, and creates a few more.

[iNow]

Should we simplify voting, use mobile somehow? Why do we still force people to amble out at awkward times between work and soccer practice for the kids to the local elk lodge or rotary club or high school gym when a thumb printed text or app would suffice?

Edited February 4, 2016 by iNow

[Phi for All]

Should we simplify voting, use mobile somehow? Why do we still force people to amble out at awkward times between work and soccer practice for the kids to the local elk lodge or rotary club or high school gym when a thumb printed text or app would suffice?

 

This is definitely a right we don't support enough. It's almost as if a large percentage of the People think you have to be capable of transporting yourself somewhere special in order to be thought of as a citizen.

 

Registering with your thumbprint before voting, and being able to exercise this right in your own time (within the limits) and circumstances would be empowering a lot of People. Unfortunately, they'd probably be intellectual enough to work a smartphone app, and that scares a lot of campaigners who aren't interested in smart anything.

 

I think this has been opposed by those who consider gerrymandering a fair practice. Any kind of artificial restrictions are going to affect the poorest voters, so it should be fairly easy to spot those who oppose those votes.

[DimaMazin]

Detector would be just additional card in play of politicians.

Or for example: 'Voters wish to choose a criminal, but they do not know who is the most important criminal.'