Justin

Justin Holman is CEO of TerraSeer, where he leads efforts to develop cutting edge sales forecasting and inventory optimization technology for the Automotive Aftermarket. Prior to joining TerraSeer, Justin managed corporate consulting for the Strategy & Analytics division at MapInfo Corporation, leading major projects for retail clients including The Home Depot, Darden Restaurants, Bridgestone-Firestone, Sainsbury’s and New York & Company. Before that, Justin served as Vice President of Software Development at LogicTools, now part of IBM's supply chain application software group. Justin holds a B.A. from Claremont McKenna College, a Ph.D. from the University of Oregon and an Executive Management certificate from Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management.

6 Comments

  • Bob 5 years ago

    Did you watch the debate? There was a guy right there who is a self made man, a CEO who has the education, life experience and mind to be an effective president.

    While I agree that the parties seem to control the system and things seem to be going in only 2 directions at the same time (maybe your system could work); there seems to be a clear better choice between the 2 options now. Perhaps the best choice in 30 years.

    • Justin 5 years ago

      Bob – I assume you’re endorsing Romney. I ask because you say “self made man” which isn’t true as he was born into extraordinary wealth and political influence. I agree that Romney is a very capable CEO and in my proposed election system he would be a terrific VP but I think he would benefit tremendously from 4 years in the executive branch prior to taking responsibility for foreign affairs which is, in my opinion, a weak spot. Obama would have surely benefited from 4 years as VP as well. In the current system, the VP position is nearly a throw-away which is a wasted opportunity to groom truly outstanding leaders. By the way, yes, I did watch part of the debate. Bedtime routines for my 3 kids interrupted quite a bit so I plan to go back and watch on YouTube. Romney was impressive in form, less so in substance; but, clearly he outperformed the President and has some momentum. We’ll see how it plays out.

  • Darren 5 years ago

    Hi Justin,
    I too share your frustration with the current state of politics. Pandering to the extremes rather than doing what is best for the country is a longstanding problem begging for a solution. I am not a political scientist either and won’t pretend like I would be able to devise a better system, although many of your propositions do sound appealing. Like with many problems, I think the solution lies in education. I just don’t see any better way to shrink the ideological extremes and focus people on having real conversations about real issues. Until we focus more on education we will probably remain stuck wondering if women or homosexuals should have any rights, rather than on issues such as clean energy or nuclear proliferation.

    • Justin 5 years ago

      Darren – thanks for sharing your perspective!

  • Mark 5 years ago

    Darren nailed it, with the commentary on education. Just about any system might work fine with intelligent, informed voters. Just about any system can fail if the voters can’t see past the distractions. I actually feel like we have two of the most moderate candidates in history this year(in terms of the final two candidates, that is), but you wouldn’t know it from listening to people on either side.

    I’m sure the system you suggest could work, but I wonder how easy it would be to partition powers between P/VP and keep things moving. Maybe it would be easy, since the VP has a vested interest in keeping the car on the road, in contrast to the current system, where the party out of power seems bent on impeding progress to make the ruling party look bad.

    Assuming you could implement your President/VP system, what would you do with congress? It’s just as broken, in my opinion. Proportional representation? Seems to me that would please voters who might, for example, want a fiscally conservative government, but not give a rip about where a candidate goes to church (or doesn’t).

    • Justin 5 years ago

      Mark, I agree, congress is broken too…perhaps more so. I would like to see a similar approach that eliminates the current focus on re-election. For the senate perhaps a “Junior” Senator is elected every 4 years and serves a fixed 8-year term, just like my VP/Pres system above so they benefit from the “Senior” Senator’s experience. No option for re-election to the Senate. House of Reps is a bit trickier. Have to give that some more thought. But, again, I like the idea of strict term limits to avoid the distraction of re-election and to reduce the influence of lobbying $$$.

      Yes, the VP and Pres would both have incentive to cooperate; or, perhaps at least they would have no obvious reason to fight. But, if they don’t get along at all, then the Pres can run the show and the VP can focus on preparing for his/her turn at bat.

      Thanks for the comment!
      Best, Justin

Leave a Reply