The chosen nominees should have positive track records dispaying true expertise and non-bias, science-backed merit in the area/s they are being appointed to oversee. This should include agreeing to evaluations and/or investigations intended to disqualify nominees with conflicts of interest or who lack required skills and knowledge as part of the process of accepting a nomination.
Our current government is overflowing with legislators that have barely any understanding at all of modern day culture and technologies and therefore should have no place overseeing the creation of regulations for them.
Additionally, various religious groups and “corporate scientists” alike are extremely likely to use this platform to try and force unqualified nominees through to various positions in order to impose their influence where it isn’t welcome. In that regard, vetting nominees for legitimate qualifications is an important line of defense to protect the separation of church and state, and to ensure we are building a new framework based on honest science that isn’t being manipulated to drive profits.
I still am not entirely sure what mechanism there is to stop the starling effect of people just voting for names they already know because of the celebrity of it all. I hadn’t thought about religious groups creating human equivalent of a bot swarm. That’s also a concern. I am guessing this platform is safe from actual bot swarms.
I gave an upvote to your post here, because I agree on principle. But to allay your concerns, I’m pretty sure this is something they’ve already taken into consideration.
I mean cabinet members have never been something the people vote for. It’s always a choice of the President who to hire, and we vote for the president. The only way this would be an “illusion of input” is if Tulsi and RFK’s team just… don’t read any of these posts or put any of our suggestions on a short list of people to ask if they want to be a cabinet member, and all these posts are just screaming into the void.
From what I can tell, RFK’s team seem to be sincerely engaging with these suggestions, they’re just not guarantees.
None of the people we’re nominating have chosen to run for a cabinet position, you can’t just pluck them out of spacetime and force them into government because they’re popular. We’re giving suggestions to the team, who decide which suggestions to give to the President elect, and the President elect will call or email people he likes for the position, in hopes they call back and say they’d love the job.
Fair enough a touch of cynicism here and there can help people manage their expectations and be vigilant against nonsense. I choose to temper my cynicism with a bit of well-earned hope. If given the opportunity to have a say about things that impact me and my loved ones, I’m going to at least try.
I mean I hear you, I’m still here, and voting, and reading, just in case. But I already see popular figures getting voted into the atmosphere over regular folks.
I can’t help but agree with the cynical observations & concerns - I’ve noticed several figureheads getting nominated for positions that they shouldn’t be, which was part of my inspiration in posting this.
I’ve actually decided not to vote for anyone that has a YouTube or a personal website or anything other than maybe a LinkedIn, on principle to avoid the starling effect.
I wouldn’t worry too much about not liking other people’s suggestions. People need to get past this knee-jerk reaction of not liking other people’s opinions. This is a free marketplace of ideas, and people with good ideas and bad ideas are allowed to freely make their pitch. Make your own suggestions for nominees, and see what happens. Ultimately, we’re the pitchers, and Trump’s team are the catchers. All we can do, is see who the team catch. Last time around Trump’s 2016 team picked a bunch of swamp monsters and establishment goons. This time around, voters are getting to suggest non-swamp, non-establishment people. Some of them are goofy popular demagogues with mo credentials, some of the suggestions are excellent people with terrific credentials who also happen to be anti-establishment.
Notice that the submissions look like job application submissions, not voter ballots.
I’m gonna make my suggestions, vote suggestions I like (knowing a popular nominee isn’t necessarily a guaranteed cabinet member), and relax and see what happens.
Also, if you think a popular nominee is particularly bad, you can always leave comments under the submission telling people it’s a bad idea, just to let your voice be heard and make an impact, respectfully of course. Wishing you luck I’m glad you’re being vigilant in wanting to see good qualified suggestions here.
Eh, no need to be negative unless, I guess, it’s terrible. I just think we have this opportunity to put forward real and regular people that politicians don’t usually see. The pundits and politicians and dudes with book deals and TV shows defeat the purpose. But I’m also a monster who thinks professional singers defeats the purpose of masked singer.
Having a website doesn’t seem like a fair reason to judge someone. I find LinkedIn a bit creepy myself, but I have a website I built from the ground up for a project I’ve worked on tirelessly for nine years. This project has been my driving force since my son was born, and I’ve invested countless unpaid hours to create what I’m passionate about, often without much support. I think it’s wise to at least look at what a person says and stands for before deciding not to vote for them. After all, the fact that they’re even engaging here says a lot—many nominees aren’t participating in the conversation at all.
that gave me a good out loud chuckle.
I’m glad you’re being vigilant in wanting to see good qualified suggestions here.