Campaign effectiveness in helping voters identify qualified candidates

¶ … Campaign War

With the campaign practices that are seen today, the average voter is not really getting enough good information about which candidate is the most qualified or the best person for the job. Most of the campaign promises that are being offered by the candidates are not promises that they are going to keep. Additionally, some of the candidates actually do lie about things that have happened in the past or things they have said in the past - and then they make excuses when they are "caught." That is something that almost all people do, because everyone exaggerates to an extent. But when candidates make serious exaggerations it can be difficult for the voters to put any trust in the other things that candidate says. That can be true even if the exaggeration was about something totally unrelated and even if the candidate did not lie or exaggerate when talking about anything else.

Currently, the campaign practices of most candidates are also focus on "slamming" the other candidate and talking about what the opponent has done wrong in his or her career. That has been taking place in campaign ads for a long time, but it has never been as serious and significant as it has been in recent years, when individuals who are running for virtually any office spend thousands of dollars trying to discredit their opponents and not enough time and money on what they can offer to the community. Through discrediting others, the candidate does not really provide any valuable information about himself or herself. Instead of focusing on the other candidate, it would be better for anyone running for political office to ignore all of that and really talk to the people about what he or she can and cannot do. When the voters understand what a person really can do to help them and how limited the political system actually is, they are more likely to be able to make informed choices about their political candidates and who they should vote for in the next election.

In the PD, there is a "temptation to shirk," and this is seen in many types of occupations. With the PD, however, this temptation could have very significant consequences for the people in the PD and also for those who needed its services. The idea of shirking and doing less than one's part is nothing new. Each person on the planet has done that at one point or another in his or her personal or professional life. Still, that does not mean it is a good idea or something that people should be doing. This is especially true with people who are in a profession where they have to protect and care for others. There are some possible causes for shirking one's duties. Some people are simply lazy or uninterested, and they do not want to be "bothered" with all of the duties of the job. There are also other people who do not feel as though the duties of the job are appropriate, or they feel as though they are being asked to do things that are not part of the scope of their job.

When people feel as though they are being asked to do too much, they may avoid some of their duties because it is "not their job." There are solutions to the problem of shirking one's duties, but those solutions can really vary depending on the duties being shirked and the kind of job a person holds. For the PD, shirking duties should result in serious disciplinary action, because the shirking of duties can be a very serious problem when other people's lives and property are involved. Overall, disciplinary actions must be strong enough that the person who is considering shirking his or her duties will think twice about whether it is "worth it" to ignore a duty he or she knows is part of the job. However, the disciplinary action should not be so severe as to frighten or intimidate people, because scaring people into doing their jobs rarely works for a long period of time. The people who work for the PD should be there because they want the job they have and they want to do well at that job. If they are there for other reasons, finding a different line of work may be best.

The term limits for the governor in NY are non-existent. There are 36 states that impose term limits, but NY is not one of those states. Because there are no term limits, the power the governor has can be stronger and more complex than the power held by other governors. At the same time, however, the NY governor knows that he or she must only do enough to get reelected, and that can lead to shirking, as well. Some things cannot be easily accomplished in one term, and may need more terms to address. With that being the case, the NY governor can lay out plans for making changes that appeal to the public. If these plans are put into action and people can see that something is being done with those plans, that is often enough to keep the governor in office. Each and every plan made by the governor will not come to pass, however, so anyone in the position of governor must be aware of the fact that the ideas he or she has have to be numerous enough (and strong enough) to keep reelection hopes alive even though some plans will not be completed.