So here is a suggestion for Elections Reform in line with Food Labeling, Credit Card Disclosure Reform, and Truth in Lending type of consumer information:
Each Candidate for any elective office must fill out the following Disclosure Form;
JOB SOUGHT
NAME OF CANDIDATE
(200 characters or less, in his or her own words, answer "why I want the job.")
BUDGET AND LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
existing Federal Budget......... Reform? .........% Change Proposed
29% goes to Military.............. (Y/N) ..............(+%, None, or -%)
21% goes to Health
8% goes to Interest on Military Debt
12% goes to Interest on Non-Military Debt
7% goes to Income Security and Labor
4% goes to Housing and Community
4% goes to Veterans' Benefits
4% goes to Food
3% goes to Government
3% goes to Education
3% goes to Environment Energy and Science
1% goes to International Affairs
1% goes to Transportation
STATEMENT
(200 characters or less, in his or her own words any comment on Priorities above)
CANDIDATE BACKGROUND
(200 characters or less, in his or her own words background and experience statement)
CANDIDATE INFORMATION
(Legally Registered information including contact information and party affiliation)
TRANSPARENCY INFORMATION
(Public website and resources to conduct due diligence by any citizen including full and current list of contributors)
****
Now the example above is for any federal lawmaker.
That said, City Dog Catcher would have the same form, but with fewer budget categories.
Some other notes:
(a) A Candidate could maintain exact funding levels, yet favor reform
(b) A Candidate could propose changes in funding levels, yet be against reforms (so to say not correct the status quo, just increase or decrease program funding)
(c) A Candidate could favor no reform, no changes, but claim to be a strong advocate (for example in Education) in the STATEMENT
(d) A Candidate could zero out every category (unrealistically) except one (or two) to demonstrate their commitment to one (or several) issues, but ought to indicate "reform"
(e) Unless this becomes some sort of mandated law, this would be voluntary and it is conceivable candidates would choose not to disclose or follow this format (or similarly agreed format)-- this could become dicey because if candidates begin to make their own forms this idea dies from the same clutter and confusion currently in the system
FInally;
A second scorecard could be more easily created by Transparency/Watchdog organizations by comparing voting record (in category) with opening Disclosure Form to determine veracity of such original statement, and the subsequent mathematical deviations from that original intent (or stated intent).
Call that the power of Plain English, combined with unified data points for more clear universal measure.
Each Candidate for any elective office must fill out the following Disclosure Form;
JOB SOUGHT
NAME OF CANDIDATE
(200 characters or less, in his or her own words, answer "why I want the job.")
BUDGET AND LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
existing Federal Budget......... Reform? .........% Change Proposed
29% goes to Military.............. (Y/N) ..............(+%, None, or -%)
21% goes to Health
8% goes to Interest on Military Debt
12% goes to Interest on Non-Military Debt
7% goes to Income Security and Labor
4% goes to Housing and Community
4% goes to Veterans' Benefits
4% goes to Food
3% goes to Government
3% goes to Education
3% goes to Environment Energy and Science
1% goes to International Affairs
1% goes to Transportation
STATEMENT
(200 characters or less, in his or her own words any comment on Priorities above)
CANDIDATE BACKGROUND
(200 characters or less, in his or her own words background and experience statement)
CANDIDATE INFORMATION
(Legally Registered information including contact information and party affiliation)
TRANSPARENCY INFORMATION
(Public website and resources to conduct due diligence by any citizen including full and current list of contributors)
****
Now the example above is for any federal lawmaker.
That said, City Dog Catcher would have the same form, but with fewer budget categories.
Some other notes:
(a) A Candidate could maintain exact funding levels, yet favor reform
(b) A Candidate could propose changes in funding levels, yet be against reforms (so to say not correct the status quo, just increase or decrease program funding)
(c) A Candidate could favor no reform, no changes, but claim to be a strong advocate (for example in Education) in the STATEMENT
(d) A Candidate could zero out every category (unrealistically) except one (or two) to demonstrate their commitment to one (or several) issues, but ought to indicate "reform"
(e) Unless this becomes some sort of mandated law, this would be voluntary and it is conceivable candidates would choose not to disclose or follow this format (or similarly agreed format)-- this could become dicey because if candidates begin to make their own forms this idea dies from the same clutter and confusion currently in the system
FInally;
A second scorecard could be more easily created by Transparency/Watchdog organizations by comparing voting record (in category) with opening Disclosure Form to determine veracity of such original statement, and the subsequent mathematical deviations from that original intent (or stated intent).
Call that the power of Plain English, combined with unified data points for more clear universal measure.
No comments:
Post a Comment