A 3 Strike Rule?

[ChezC3]

Since these politicians all give the same song and dance -- Would you support a rule stipulating that should a politician in the course of a term fail to keep at least 3 campaign promises than he or she would be ineligible for reelection?

 

[Perotista]

Since these politicians all give the same song and dance -- Would you support a rule stipulating that should a politician in the course of a term fail to keep at least 3 campaign promises than he or she would be ineligible for reelection?

The problem here is that today most politicians win their elections on negative campaign ads. They try to keep mum as to where they stand on most issues fearing that if they take a stance they will alienate some voting block and hence lose the election. Negative campaigning works.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

We'd have no politicians for more than one term, then.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What counts as keeping that promise? Proposing a bill that never makes it out of committee? Voting for a losing bill? Too often our representatives pretend to do things, that they never do, but too often they are never even given the chance. Often a bill contains 50 things; did the representative vote for all 50, or vote for it because they liked 27 of them?

 

[Fisher]

No, because a) it is subjective; b) it discourages compromise; and c) people would try to thwart anything getting done so they could win the majority by default when nothing got done.....

 

[Perotista]

No, because a) it is subjective; b) it discourages compromise; and c) people would try to thwart anything getting done so they could win the majority by default when nothing got done.....

This sound exactly like the present congress of today. No compromise, nothing getting done, one party striving to maintain its majority while the other strives to become the majority, all while doing nothing for the country. Three strikes couldn't hurt even it might be considered subjective.

 

[rathi]

And who exactly will decide if a politician has kept a campaign promise? The entity granted that power will be able to strip people of power based on an entirely subjective judgement, which is just asking for abuse. It completely fouls up the system of checks and balances and is a terrible idea.

 

[Paschendale]

Considering that there is no such thing as a formalized campaign promise... this is stupid.

 

[radcen]

1. I promise to not vote for Pol Pot for Secretary of State.
2. I promise to smile for the camera whenever possible.
3. I promise to pander and say things that I think people want to hear.

There. Done.

 

[ChezC3]

Well, thanks to all for the "constructive" criticism....:damn

Here's the thing. Negative ads work to get elected but don't do a damn thing to solve problems. Real solutions getting lost in the procedural fluff is something we're (suppose) trying to fix so that actual progress can be had. Checks and Balances and Accountability are two seperate issues. The latter is what I am trying to find solutions for. Now, somone with another snarky comment will be more than happy to point out that voting is that mechanism of accountabilty.

I would ask them -- has it worked thus far? No. The memory of voters is short.

The political process has been slipping away from us for a long time. I'm just trying to find solutions to snag it before it is completely beyond our grasp.

Being an informed voter is no longer enough and there isn't enough of us the way it is. We must get engaged. We need to come to some agreement, set some form of standards and provide consequence for those representing us to ensure they are representing us and not getting paid handsomely to do nothing other than give streets names and fill the calander with various days of appreciation.

 

[lemmiwinx]

Just limit them to two terms in any one office. The ones who want to stay in office forever are mostly the ones who think they own the rest of us.

 

[Perotista]

Well, thanks to all for the "constructive" criticism....:damn

Here's the thing. Negative ads work to get elected but don't do a damn thing to solve problems. Real solutions getting lost in the procedural fluff is something we're (suppose) trying to fix so that actual progress can be had. Checks and Balances and Accountability are two seperate issues. The latter is what I am trying to find solutions for. Now, somone with another snarky comment will be more than happy to point out that voting is that mechanism of accountabilty.

I would ask them -- has it worked thus far? No. The memory of voters is short.

The political process has been slipping away from us for a long time. I'm just trying to find solutions to snag it before it is completely beyond our grasp.

Being an informed voter is no longer enough and there isn't enough of us the way it is. We must get engaged. We need to come to some agreement, set some form of standards and provide consequence for those representing us to ensure they are representing us and not getting paid handsomely to do nothing other than give streets names and fill the calander with various days of appreciation.

You forgot naming post offices

 

[ChezC3]

You forgot naming post offices

Forgive me, I've been remiss...

:Oopsie

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Since these politicians all give the same song and dance -- Would you support a rule stipulating that should a politician in the course of a term fail to keep at least 3 campaign promises than he or she would be ineligible for reelection?

Nope because politicians can genuinely run into unforeseen roadblocks.

 

[Green Balls]

I look at it this way:

If you get hired into a company by telling them you can do skill a, skill b, skill c, etc., and you only deliver skill a, then you should be fired. You are expected to be able to perform all requirements of the job. If you can't, then don't lie about it, and don't waste everyone's time.

The same should hold true for politicians. If you are going to make a bunch of promises, you better live up to them, otherwise keep your mouth shut and move on.

 

[ChezC3]

Nope because politicians can genuinely run into unforeseen roadblocks.

Then I guess they'd have to dig down deep and endeavor to persevere.

 

[ChezC3]

I look at it this way:

If you get hired into a company by telling them you can do skill a, skill b, skill c, etc., and you only deliver skill a, then you should be fired. You are expected to be able to perform all requirements of the job. If you can't, then don't lie about it, and don't waste everyone's time.

The same should hold true for politicians. If you are going to make a bunch of promises, you better live up to them, otherwise keep your mouth shut and move on.

Exactly.

 

[spud_meister]

I think people who expect politicians to keep their promises should be ineligible to vote.

 

[radcen]

Well, thanks to all for the "constructive" criticism....:damn

Here's the thing. Negative ads work to get elected but don't do a damn thing to solve problems. Real solutions getting lost in the procedural fluff is something we're (suppose) trying to fix so that actual progress can be had. Checks and Balances and Accountability are two seperate issues. The latter is what I am trying to find solutions for. Now, somone with another snarky comment will be more than happy to point out that voting is that mechanism of accountabilty.

I would ask them -- has it worked thus far? No. The memory of voters is short.

The political process has been slipping away from us for a long time. I'm just trying to find solutions to snag it before it is completely beyond our grasp.

Being an informed voter is no longer enough and there isn't enough of us the way it is. We must get engaged. We need to come to some agreement, set some form of standards and provide consequence for those representing us to ensure they are representing us and not getting paid handsomely to do nothing other than give streets names and fill the calander with various days of appreciation.

Your solution is too easy to work around.