PDA

View Full Version : Penalties for politicians not keeping their promises



entropy
16 Mar 09,, 17:40
Should one hold politicians responsible for the lots of promises they make before the elections?

In my ideal state -- you make a promise, you hold it. 100% of all promises held during term, one gets qualified for participating in elections again.
More than 70%, one gets a full pension and no penalties.
40-70%, one loses a part of the pension and civic rights.
Less than 40%, administrative punishment.
0% of promises held, public hanging.

What are your suggestions and thoughts about this?

crooks
16 Mar 09,, 17:48
Interesting concept - personally I wouldn't favour it being so utterly rigid, and also what would be the barometre to 'accomplishing' the promise?

I can see the idea behind it, and it would certainly lead to more honest, realistic expectations but it might also stifle vision and prevent politicians from taking justifiable political risks because they'd be terrified of breaking a promise.

Is part of your argument it would encourage politicians not to make promises?

entropy
16 Mar 09,, 17:54
Interesting concept - personally I wouldn't favour it being so utterly rigid, and also what would be the barometre to 'accomplishing' the promise?

I can see the idea behind it, and it would certainly lead to more honest, realistic expectations but it might also stifle vision and prevent politicians from taking justifiable political risks because they'd be terrified of breaking a promise.

Is part of your argument it would encourage politicians not to make promises?

Actually I'm looking for a way to make sure politicians do things. Politicians usually do not. They never solve problems, they never make efficient decisions. All they do is taking actions that make them look good.

I'm not a democrat, but since abolishment of democracy is unthinkable in the modern world, I'd like to see a mechanism that ensures action by the politicians.

The barometre might work this way: one promises a 5% decline in crime. Then a jury takes a look at the statistics and displays the results. Of course one should keep in mind the following: if one abolishes a law, crime rate automatically falls.
So a correct input-output system has to be made up. That's why I opened this thread.

dalem
16 Mar 09,, 17:55
We do hold them responsible, every election.

-dale

entropy
16 Mar 09,, 17:56
Crooks also made two interesting points: the one with politicians not making any promises, and being elected on basis of wit, charisma, family values and other irrelevant criteria.
Also the one with politicians afraid of taking risks and becoming more static.

entropy
16 Mar 09,, 17:57
We do hold them responsible, every election.

-dale

And that is exactly how? By not voting for them again?

:))

gunnut
16 Mar 09,, 18:15
And that is exactly how? By not voting for them again?

:))

By making him the president of the United States?

entropy
16 Mar 09,, 18:18
By making him the president of the United States?

And if he screws up?

dalem
16 Mar 09,, 19:03
And if he screws up?

Learn your lesson and be more discriminating next time. The electorate bears the responsibility for bad politicians.

-dale

ArmchairGeneral
16 Mar 09,, 19:06
Learn your lesson and be more discriminating next time. The electorate bears the responsibility for bad politicians.

Exactly.

entropy
16 Mar 09,, 19:43
Learn your lesson and be more discriminating next time. The electorate bears the responsibility for bad politicians.

-dale

The wise, well-versed on all subjects Electorate?

Right. Now I'm responsible for a bunch of ignorandi following the first populist they see.

There is no such thing as the Responsible Electorate. It's an illusion.

Grim
16 Mar 09,, 20:16
In my ideal state -- you make a promise, you hold it. 100% of all promises held during term, one gets qualified for participating in elections again.
More than 70%, one gets a full pension and no penalties.
40-70%, one loses a part of the pension and civic rights.
Less than 40%, administrative punishment.
0% of promises held, public hanging.

Sir I like the core idea you have here. It gives room for the fact that often politicians are forced to break promises no fault of their own as times and situations change after the elections are over. I would add to it though that deliberate failure to uphold the oath of office should always be a hanging offense.

dalem
16 Mar 09,, 20:58
The wise, well-versed on all subjects Electorate?

Right. Now I'm responsible for a bunch of ignorandi following the first populist they see.

There is no such thing as the Responsible Electorate. It's an illusion.

Then let's dispense with democratic forms of government and go with an autocracy. I claim right of kingship. All will heed my word or be cast out of Daletopia!

-dale

Ryan Bailey
19 Mar 09,, 13:49
While I would like integrity in public service, more reasonable to expect would be the self education of the electors as to the gamesmanship inherent in the politico-parlance of campaign promises.

Blue
19 Mar 09,, 14:50
Should one hold politicians responsible for the lots of promises they make before the elections?

In my ideal state -- you make a promise, you hold it. 100% of all promises held during term, one gets qualified for participating in elections again.
More than 70%, one gets a full pension and no penalties.
40-70%, one loses a part of the pension and civic rights.
Less than 40%, administrative punishment.
0% of promises held, public hanging.

What are your suggestions and thoughts about this? I'm game...sounds good, lets do it!

astralis
19 Mar 09,, 15:30
wow, sounds like a nice autocracy to me.

entropy
19 Mar 09,, 17:34
Sir I like the core idea you have here. It gives room for the fact that often politicians are forced to break promises no fault of their own as times and situations change after the elections are over. I would add to it though that deliberate failure to uphold the oath of office should always be a hanging offense.

You have a point there. Sometimes the situation swings too much to keep promised efficiency or even deal with the problem.

Some kind of commission would be necessary, but we know about the efficiency of those...

And I agree definitely on the last part. And immediately I can think of 4-5 Belgian politicians deserving the noose.

entropy
19 Mar 09,, 17:34
Then let's dispense with democratic forms of government and go with an autocracy. I claim right of kingship. All will heed my word or be cast out of Daletopia!

-dale

We'll rebel.

entropy
19 Mar 09,, 17:36
While I would like integrity in public service, more reasonable to expect would be the self education of the electors as to the gamesmanship inherent in the politico-parlance of campaign promises.

The problem is that the people don't do what they should because there's a lot of them and they generally act like electrons in orbit: they're lazy.

We have a government forcing people to vote here. People "should" this and that before the elections here as well, but they don't. A rather large number of them vote for the candidate with the funniest name.
The people don't know, won't do. It's the sad reality.

dalem
19 Mar 09,, 17:55
We'll rebel.

No you won't. Anyone who'd agree to transfer that much responsibility to the rule set would never tip over the game board.

-dale

entropy
19 Mar 09,, 18:09
No you won't. Anyone who'd agree to transfer that much responsibility to the rule set would never tip over the game board.

-dale

I'll agree to do so just to see you stand before the democratic machine afterwards.