Conquer Club

(1) What do you assume about elected politicians (e.g. governors, presidents, mayors, etc.)?

(2) What do you assume about appointed officials (e.g. police, regulators, and in general civil servants)?

1. They have an agenda which they wish to implement. This agenda is not necessarily a good one, but the intention is to benefit their constituents (most of the time).
They are also somewhat accountable as they must keep their constituents happy (Or lose elections).

2. They are implementing policy passed down. They tend to be technocratic and pursue means tested policy (most of the time).
They are kept accountable by 1 and the public, if they screw up the public puts the heat on 1 who sacks 2. In theory anyway.

A point about #2, some of the public servants you list I wouldn't really consider as "appointed". Yes a police officer was not elected, so I guese technically if they get hired it's sort of an appointment, they usually have certain qualifications they have to meet to get the job though, it isin't just a big wig saying "I want you to have this job".

What I would consider an appointed position, is something like a senator in Canada. All they have to do is be the Prime minister's buddy. There are some broad qualifications but they are vague and unspecific. The selection is based primarily on the arbitrary choice of 1 person.

I only bring this up as it changes my assumptions on number two. I expect police, regulators and public servants, to have been professionally trained and hired/selected for these reasons. I don't have the same expectations for someone appointed to the Canadian senate (or similar positions).

Baron Von PWN wrote:What I would consider an appointed position, is something like a senator in Canada. All they have to do is be the Prime minister's buddy. There are some broad qualifications but they are vague and unspecific. The selection is based primarily on the arbitrary choice of 1 person.

Wow, I did not know that. It seems...strange.

Woodruff wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:What I would consider an appointed position, is something like a senator in Canada. All they have to do is be the Prime minister's buddy. There are some broad qualifications but they are vague and unspecific. The selection is based primarily on the arbitrary choice of 1 person.

Wow, I did not know that. It seems...strange.

Yup, Canadian senators are appointed by the Prime minister for life (well they have to retire at 75). The flip side is the Canadian senate is subservient to the commons (our equivalent to congress). The senate only reviews bills and makes recommended changes. In general they do a pretty decent job of this and catch flaws in pieces of legislation that may constitutional questionable.They technically have the ability to kill bills, but have done so extremely rarely (I think twice).

However our current PM has made some... questionable choices for Senators(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Brazeau, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Duffy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Wallin) One of them was arrested for spousal abuse, all three are being investigated for improper spending claims, all tree have no real legal background.

BigBallinStalin wrote:(1) What do you assume about elected politicians (e.g. governors, presidents, mayors, etc.)?

(2) What do you assume about appointed officials (e.g. police, regulators, and in general civil servants)?

1- 99% of them have as their main priority being re-elected
2-buddy system

BigBallinStalin wrote:(1) What do you assume about elected politicians (e.g. governors, presidents, mayors, etc.)?

That they are fundamentally dishonest, or, will become dishonest in order to perpetuate their own existence. The only people who would be good politicians is those whom can say with perfect honesty that they never want to be a politician, thus a paradox.

(2) What do you assume about appointed officials (e.g. police, regulators, and in general civil servants)?

That generally they will work in a way that does the best job they are capable of, considering a) that they will generally follow the path of least resistance, b) that they function under a prescribed policy or mandate and c) the alternative options available to them in the job market, and finally d) their potential for progression within the government agency.

I.e. they will do a good job of what they do as they like their pay check, however they will generally take short cuts where their job, management, and governing policy permits; their work quality will also be constrained by the meta environment (governing policy, jobs elseware, progression etc).

(1) and (2): I assume they are NOT agents controlled by the reptilian overlords, but instead that they are human being with similar bodily functions to mine.

Also, I feel like this should be one of those threads where we list subsequent assumptions (like the free market one).