Ignore democracy by 'pledge'

The jumping off discussion area for the rest of the Deck. All things Lakewood.
Please check out our other sections. As we refile many discussions from the past into
their proper sections please check them out and offer suggestions.

Moderators: Jim DeVito, Dan Alaimo

Dan Shields
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:16 am
Location: Lakewood, Ohio

Ignore democracy by 'pledge'

Postby Dan Shields » Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:20 pm

Do we need candidates to sign a 'pledge' to affirm their position on a given issue? Also, should we base our vote on whether a candidate will sign (or won't sign) a pledge? It seems like a bad idea - do we want government by pledge?


Donald Farris
Posts: 309
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Lakewood and points beyond
Contact:

Postby Donald Farris » Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:37 am

Hi,
I assume, Mr. Shields, you are referring to my asking candidates to pledge not to take the homes of Lakewood citizens for the private gain of others.

My requesting candidates to state their position on this very important issue arises from the recent ruling of the US Supreme Court where they strongly recommended that we should at the local level know where candidates stand on this issue. I believe the right to own property should be protected equally throughout the USA, but the highest court in ths land does not agree. So, I am following their advice.

I believe it is a good idea to understand where people that could be representing me stand on this important issue.

I am not asking anyone to make a promise they can not keep.

PS. Mr. Carroll a candidate for Council-at-Large has promised not to support efforts to use eminent domain to aid private development.


Dan Shields
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:16 am
Location: Lakewood, Ohio

the Pledge

Postby Dan Shields » Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:56 pm

Don and Lynn -
You are correct - I am speaking specifically about the 'pledge' you are requesting that candidates sign regarding the eminent domain issue. I do agree with your position on eminent domain abuse, but the idea of asking candidates to sign a contract regarding any issue is just plain wrong. How do others feel about this? Do we want every special interest group seeking "pledges" on how their (fill in the blank - state rep, judge, city council person) will vote on any certain issue? I think it is wrong to place these candidates in this position, and I think it is wrong to ask Lakewood citizens to vote based on any written contract.
People have had months to decide their vote - please make your choice tomorrow based on how you believe your candidate will decide on all issues; that's why you elect them to represent you.


Grace O'Malley
Posts: 680
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:31 pm

Postby Grace O'Malley » Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:08 pm

How many times have you voted for a candidate based on campaign promises or platforms only to have them behave in a manner you could not have anticipated?

"Read my lips...no new taxes!" Not that I fell for that line, but many people did.

What's wrong with having a candidate "own their words?"

Do you not see a problem with candidates stating a position but not being able to commit to it by putting it in writing? It's so easy to claim that you were misunderstood or misinterpreted.

People are tired of the wishy-washy sound bites and are demanding more accountability and I think that's good.


Dan Shields
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:16 am
Location: Lakewood, Ohio

Postby Dan Shields » Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:56 pm

As the saying goes - 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'. Yes, I do see a problem with asking candidates to sign off on a 'pledge', which is another word for contract. We elect the people we elect based on what we believe to be their ability to make the best decisions on our behalf. This goes to the heart of representative democracy. In this age of special interests both on the right and the left, I don't want to see candidates - any candidates - burdened with dozens (or hundreds) of contracts that they have to sign to prove they will decide an issue one way or the other. I don't want government by contract. This pledge/contract idea is one I hope does not catch on.
Besides, accountability can be had at the ballot box.


Lynn Farris
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:24 pm
Location: Lakewood, Ohio
Contact:

Postby Lynn Farris » Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:29 pm

Dan,

I could not disagree with you more strongly. I do think it is our responsibility as an electorate to know where our officials stand on issues that are important to us. The person running has two choices, they can say where they stand on an issue or they can skirt the issue. I have much more respect for a person that tells me their opinion and why than a do for a person that won't think about an important issue.

To be frank, I'm tired of campaign literature that says hey, I'm a nice guy and I have a nice family - vote for me. The stakes are too high. I want more than a nice guy/gal. I want someone that I feel will represent me.

If we don't take the responsibility to be an informed voter - we get what we deserve.

This is accountability at the ballot box. If we don't do it now, it may be too late. Since when did uninformed voting become popular? Ignorance is not bliss - it is foolish.

The people in the West End, including myself and Don, spent 2 solid years in an emotional and financial battle that I pray no one ever has to face again. I have heard from thousands of people around the country the same horrors. I didn't know enough 4 years ago to ask this question, if I did maybe I could have spared some very good people some very bad times and saved our city tons of money. I won't make that mistake again.


"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away." ~ George Carlin
Dan Shields
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:16 am
Location: Lakewood, Ohio

Postby Dan Shields » Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:47 pm

Lynn -
As you say, a person can say how they feel on an issue, or skirt an issue, but ultimately he/she is elected to make choices based on the facts at hand. There is no contract that can cover every situation every time...that is why this pledge/contract is bad public policy.
Also, you want a candidate's opinion, which is what a campaign is for...but an opinion is not, and should not be, a contract.
I get it - you want to know how these candidates will respond to an eminent domain issue. But answer this - do you want to see every candidate locked in to every issue from every civic/religious/community or individual group? Do you want candidates signing ten, twenty, or a hundred different pledges/contracts? I hope not.



Return to “Lakewood General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 26 guests