Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Electoral Contract

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 4:24:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Should election promises made by politicians to the electorate be considered a legally binding contract? If not why not?

Should politicians who violate their promises be subject to prosecution by the state, private prosecution or civil action?

Of course oddly enough it will probably be people who did not vote for the individual concerned who will sue him... does that make a difference?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 4:29:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This proposal could be problematic, due to the opposing parties possibly finding some way to frame the politician in question...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 4:34:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 4:29:21 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This proposal could be problematic, due to the opposing parties possibly finding some way to frame the politician in question...

I was thinking that for the election pledge to be held as legally binding it would be required for the politician to have stated "If elected I will xxx" and for the statement not to have been clearly retracted prior to the vote beginning.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 4:37:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The thing is, I don't think politicians ever specifically say "I promise to..." thus eradicating any clam of breaking promises. They word it in a way so that they are stating goals, so then when their goal isn't reached, it's not a broken promise, just a goal backed by false hope.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 4:46:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 4:24:29 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Should election promises made by politicians to the electorate be considered a legally binding contract? If not why not?

Should politicians who violate their promises be subject to prosecution by the state, private prosecution or civil action?

Of course oddly enough it will probably be people who did not vote for the individual concerned who will sue him... does that make a difference?

I'll let Clegg field this one.
"For the love of God no!"
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 5:18:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It might be prudent, once a politician gets elected, signing a contract explicitly stating what he intends to do. That might not limit the scope of his discretionary powers, but also ensure that he sticks specifically to the tasks he sets out for himself, and doesn't compromise/end up getting shoddy legislation out.

Instead of putting him in prison, though, which is probably a bit harsh, we might instead stipulate in the contract that failure to meet the terms agreed upon results in being barred from public office (whether it's that office only, or only for X number of years, or whatever... Well, we'll think about that later).
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 1:36:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I thought this was going to say that voting is a contract to be oppressed by the state in exchange for some minor benefits.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 3:32:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You are talking about changing the very definition of politics: the art of the possible, to what? Honestly i can't think of some pithy answer. Anywho, i like the idea, but it would change everything.
Sky_ace25
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 4:03:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 4:24:29 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Should election promises made by politicians to the electorate be considered a legally binding contract? If not why not?

Should politicians who violate their promises be subject to prosecution by the state, private prosecution or civil action?

Of course oddly enough it will probably be people who did not vote for the individual concerned who will sue him... does that make a difference?

No, because politicians will never promise to make any major changes for fear of liability. Thus, all politicians will sound exactly the same or they will promise minute change that has no real effect. If one politician campaigns to lower tax rates by .0005% and the other campaigns to raise tax rates by .0005%, it won't help me decide who's better. Of course in all due reality most Americans these days have no clue about the person they're voting for outside of what his/her party is...

Additionally, this presumes that one politician can strongly influence the legislative process. There are state legislatures all over the country and frankly speaking it's impossible to assume that just one member of that legislature can actually make a change. If 1/3 of the legislature is Democrat, and then the remaining 2/3 is voted to be Republican, should the Democrats be held liable if they're unable to deliver on their promises?
Seriously, Pluto is no longer a planet?