“Vetting someone for their concept of governance increases voter awareness and participation in sensible citizenship.”
Vetting is defined by Oxford Dictionary as:
“make a careful and critical examination of (something).”
That’s something I always do here in the northwest as we have a huge amount of liberal and rinos up here.
But your script said “I *do* have a problem with allowing certain ones to hold public office.” So other than what you should do as a responsible voter, what is your determination of using vetting. If it is a way to make yourself or others aware of their agenda then that’s great and I applaud you. But the outcome of vetting to determine the eligibility of a candidate that is within the law shouldn’t be a criteria for eligibility. If that isn’t what you meant, then I apologize for not understanding your entry.
wy69
I believe you have it right. Here is my plan:
1.) Publicly post on web the names of everyone in my county who is required to take the Oath of Office. A FOIA request and other means will generate the names and office held.
2.) Provide an online examination for them to complete or ignore at will. Completion strengthens their standing in the eyes of informed voters. Ignorance or laziness is a tacit confession of, or may be construed as incompetence, evasion, or ill-will toward fidelity.
3.) Make provision for them to state their case however they wish when it comes to policies they want to adopt as a way of forwarding the common good.
The net effect for my County, anyway, is a “one stop shop” for citizens to check candidates out before the vote. I will not vote for a local candidate who refuses the exams, and I will let them know that clearly.
Accountability should not wait until they are elected
I also think it is bass-ackwards to allow ballot access for individuals who are manifestly opposed to our stated aims and form of government.