My Montebello      
 Montebello Newsletter and More      Montebello,CA

HOME
 

Submitting Announcements to "E-News"

The Best of Montebello

Community Lists and Services

En espanol

"E-News" Issues

"E-News" Textbook

Helpful Links

Life's Problems and Solutions

"Montebello Oil" Activities

"Montebello Oil" Textbook

Open Suggestion Box

Project Instructions

Public Documents

Setting an Example
(includes photo gallery)


Young Thinkers

 







Who We Are

Contact Us


FAQs

 

 

 

 

 

Back to Table of Contents

The Federalist Diaries

 

How Little We Know, Part 3

The main focus in my life now is to open people's minds so no one will be so conceited that they think they have the total truth.  They should be eager to learn, to listen, to research and not to confine, to hurt, to kill, those who disagree with them.

Sir John Templeton, American-born businessman and philanthropist

In part 1, we saw that we could not have precise or complete knowledge.  In part 2 we saw that our society had means by which to handle imprecise or incomplete knowledge.  We now turn our attention to the application of one such means to candidates for elective office, namely, the use of a judicial process to give us accurate information about candidates.

           If we applied a judicial process, we might well see candidates squandering far less money on misleading propaganda.  At the same time, we might see some of that campaign money having a direct and beneficial impact on our community.  (Ponder that possibility.)

           The closest we come to the application of a judicial process to candidates is a debate with a moderator, for which the League of Women Voters has a good reputation.  Yet, a debate is constrained by time to an extent not found in a judicial process.  (I am talking about a real judicial process, not Judge Judy.)  Because of the time constraint, a candidate might impress a falsehood in the minds of the audience and not be challenged.

           Also, a debate does not involve third parties other than when questions and challenges are offered from the audience. 

           Thus, with the intent to separate fact from fiction, we would find it useful to restructure a candidates debate to better approximate a judicial process:

·        sufficient time for rebuttal, even if there has to be a recess for everyone to freshen up;

·        the ability of a candidate to call somebody from the audience to testify to the veracity of an assertion, and the ability of the other candidate to cross-examine the “witness”;

·        a panel of moderators who would use American rules of evidence in admitting or striking statements made by candidates;

·        a conclusion by the audience or randomly chosen members of the audience about the veracity of candidate statements, this conclusion becoming an “official community document”, without any intervention by government;  the audience would have to take an oath affirming that it would conclude impartially;

·        a source of funds to support this enhanced candidates debate;  this source of funds could be campaign money.  (Ponder that possibility.)

           It is important to note that the aforementioned judicial process would not prevent a candidate from mouthing, outside the room, whatever he or she pleased, in whichever manner desired, as is now done.  But he or she would be more cautious because of the power invested in the community and the funds available to set the record straight.

           In the next part, we will look at a judicial process as applied to elected officials.

April 5, 2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Back to Table of Contents

Back to the Top