HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Politics & Government » Election Reform (Group) » 2020 is a Golden Opportun...

Sat Mar 30, 2019, 10:53 AM

2020 is a Golden Opportunity for Election Reform without any Legislation

If one popular democrat's campaign does this:

1)Recruit a cabinet "in waiting."
2)Recruit potential SCOTUS nominees, and major executive branch department secretaries, like FCC chair, SEC chair, FED chair,
3)Strategy meetings, develop cohesive four year program.
4)Announce them all, offer them up for debates.
5)Reshuffle the deck after the primary(I'll explain why later, it's performance based)

The main point of doing this is to end the post primary and "January (post-inaugural) surprises."

Dan Quayle as VP, Scott Pruitt @ EPA are two glaring examples that come to mind.

Under forum TOS I won't list examples from this party...

Here's a hypothetical version:

"I'm _____.______ and I'm running for president."

Should there be a vacancy at the supreme court, Jonathan Turley has agreed to serve.
Ralph Nader has agreed to serve as my AG if I'm elected.
_____._____ secretary of transportation
_____._______Federal Reserve....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States

At least pick a cabinet and offer them up for debate.

They want to debate the cabinet and other potential appointees of my opponents.

Then everybody who hasn't done it has to scramble to do it or appear woefully unprepared to preside.

Which they usually are.

Benefits:
1) No legislation needed. All it takes is one candidate to do it and it forces all future candidates to do it in any party.

2) Gives the press, the people, and the congress ample opportunity to vet and object to any problematic potential appointees. Should speed up confirmation after inauguration.

3) The winner of the primary ends up with a large pool of talent they can poach from those defeated in the primary if those folks perform better in discussions and debates than their original picks or the original picks should become unavailable for service by inauguration.

4) The candidate chooses instead of choosing based on political favor repayment.

5) Public and the press exert much more pressure against January surprises. Anybody who dares switch from Ralph Nader as AG to Rudy Giuliani would get thrashed for it by the press and public and congress.

After the primary, the campaign needs to reconcile platform with grass roots priorities from the party membership, but starting campaigns this way would widen the possibilities and make a more intelligent and thoughtful process.

What say you DU?

I'd like for candidates to announce their cabinet the SAME DAY they file the candidacy, but it's a little late for that this cycle, but not too late to do it a month from now....or at least before this primary really gets going....

4 replies, 1090 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply 2020 is a Golden Opportunity for Election Reform without any Legislation (Original post)
Luvapottamus Mar 2019 OP
MichMan Mar 2019 #1
Luvapottamus Mar 2019 #2
MichMan Mar 2019 #3
Luvapottamus Mar 2019 #4

Response to Luvapottamus (Original post)

Sat Mar 30, 2019, 10:57 AM

1. Why would anyone agree to serve as a cabinet member for someone who isn't even elected yet ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 30, 2019, 11:02 AM

2. To help them win the election.

I'll wager Nader would agree to do it.

Turley would probably agree to SCOTUS.

Why wouldn't they agree to serve?

I'd be happy to serve as FCC chair and participate in debates for any candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luvapottamus (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 30, 2019, 11:22 AM

3. And probably take them out of consideration by all the other candidates

Why would anyone want to commit to someone who might not win and take themselves out of the opportunity to serve for the winner ?


Let's say Nadar agrees to be AG for Elizabeth Warren. Pretty certain at that point he wont be offered the position by anyone else.

Great if she wins, but no good for him if she drops out of the primary after the first few states & then someone like Kamala Harris for example is the winner

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 30, 2019, 11:53 AM

4. Why?

My thoughts regarding this is when you recruit a prospective AG, you tell them what your prosecutorial priorities are, listen to what they think they should be, and if you agree, you agree to vocalize those in debates with prospective counterparts.

It's good for the candidate because they have demonstrated not only what they intend to do in their debates but they have demonstrated the ability to appoint somebody who will execute that policy faithfully.

And if the candidate loses the nomination, but the prospective appointee performed well, the ultimate NOMINEE has that person in the talent pool to draw apon if their original pick becomes unavailable or performs badly in debates.

the nominee can POACH talent from the other candidates for the GENERAL ELECTION.

I don't see that as a problem.

Every candidate is likely to make a few bad choices. Espescially if they wait until January AFTER Inaguration.

But think of the primary first:

Your candidate picks a GREAT Secretary of Agriculture, Treasury, Defence, AG, but screws up a little on Veteran's affairs and some scandal erupts near the end of the primary.

But they win anyway, because they ran the best campaign.

Now they have a dozen other prospective VA choices that have already been VETTED by the press, the public, and the congress....

These are not elected offices, so I'm not suggesting that the nominee rearrange the entire deck and pick the MOST POPULAR from every opponant.

I just don't see a problem if a candidate who loses recruited the best possible Secretary of Defence, then loses the nomination and the nominee poaches them.

It's PUBLIC SERVICE, not a PRIZE.

Anybody who agrees to serve under Warren should be agreeable to do it under Harris should the need arise.

Except in radical platform differences.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread