Tiffany Bond  🦞 🇺🇸Verified account

Monthly ousting would be highly impractical for workflow. Just get the $ out of the job interview process and focus on candidate qualifications.

I hear that often... "interrupted work flow" as a reason for the longer terms. I honestly don't see much productive work for me being done. Maybe for you? How much of that "work flow" involves nonProductive dialing-4-dollars, benefitting only their party elite? TY, Tiffany.

I would guess the high frequency, high $ campaigns take a lot of continual resources. In my ideal world, I would advocate for longer terms (4 year?), limited spending ($.05/constituent?), 2x pay but no outside funding. Focus on those who love to read/write law instead of parties.

W/all due respect, Citizens elevate politicians beyond hiredHelp that they are, in spirit of lawyers, agents & brokers. They're employees soLong as they do goodJobs 4 us & long term binding contracts should be viewed w/suspicion & some reward for loss-of-opportunity to do better.

We need a process that attracts people who would enjoy and be good at the actual job of creating law, not the circus of getting elected. We are hiring for a very serious job with an interview that is akin to survivor.

Indeed, fellow Citizen. The introduction of private money & it's inflated influence has distorted our vision of what's important for society & ourselves. We cripple ourselves further w/each election b/c we're answer the wrong questions. TY4 reading & best 2U, Tiffany.

So we ask the right questions. We send the best people, objectively the right people...those who may not prefer attention, tv ads, slick mailers, but who are motivated by altruism, equity and humanity. Those who understand science, economics, law, etc.

Maybe... What are the "right" questions & how do we know, with any assurance that the answers are honest? TY, fellow Citizen & best 2U.