English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Consider:
There is a promise of performance.
There is a quid pro quo, the votes for the performance.
If there is a failure in the performance, shouldn't there
be recourse?

It would certainly make an interesting class action suit.
It would be an interesting and very democratic
additional 'check and balance`.

With the Elections coming up, any thoughts?

2007-10-31 09:34:57 · 11 answers · asked by Irv S 7 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

Well, we've got some thoughts alright.
I'm deeply disturbed by the cynicism in the
idea that we can't believe what any Pol. says.
I share it, but what does it say when we openly
distrust those we propose to choose to lead us.
There has got to be some accountability added to the system somehow.
This question was a stab at doing so.

2007-10-31 12:59:08 · update #1

Well,.... I guess all that's left is 'the lamp post`.

2007-11-01 13:14:11 · update #2

Karen L. - I had envisioned a civil action,
attacking the personal assets of the offender
as the 'contract` is made before he gains
office, and thus no immunity is yet in force.
All the smug bastards seem to be rich y'know.

2007-11-01 13:19:02 · update #3

11 answers

No because an election promise is more like an advertisement -- it's an "offer for bids" (sometimes literally) rather than an actual offer for sale. I don't think any court would say that reasonable people expect that politicians can be bound--because no one seriously believes that politicians will follow through with campaign promises.

Further, even if there was such an intent to be bound, the contracts are impossible... because a congressman can introduce legislation, or a president can propose it, but one person in our government really can't do anything unilaterally (except in regards to a few executive actions).

Finally, even if all of that were not true, officials have "official immunity" (an offspring of sovereign immunity, the idea that the King cannot be sued unless he consents) for all official acts. This would be wound up in said "official act," and so you'd be out of luck.

(Plus, if this were an option, candidates would never say ANYTHING that they'd hope to do in office, which would make our job of trying to tell them apart, except in the most superficial ways, almost impossible... I know we want politicians to live up to their word, but stooping to their level isn't a good idea.)

2007-10-31 09:43:16 · answer #1 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 0 0

Interesting idea! But I don't think you can hold politicians responsible for election promises. They might say, as the tobacco companies said "You couldn't blame us for saying what we did, but you shouldn't have listened to us, you should have known we were lying".

Politicians know, and we know too, that an honest politician doesn't have a chance, so they see lying as only playing the game. Even if you have the very best intentions of serving your constituency, you can't help them at all if you don't get into office, so the end justifies the means.

So in the end the blame is ours, not theirs, because we encourage them to lie and we let them get away with. Even the newsmedia don't report when they know a pol is lying. In fact it's quite the contrary--since we are obsessed with celebrity, the media rate candidates on their 'genuineness', their ability to lie convincingly.

2007-10-31 16:42:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No, the outcome of a promise is not in complete control of the person making the promise. The constitution is totally stomped on, why would an election promise hold a prayer?

2007-10-31 16:41:29 · answer #3 · answered by zgamez176 1 · 1 0

Election promises are in word and voice only. It's not like the candidate is making a legally binding commitment; he's not signing anything. Those promises are just to get as many boneheads to vote for him.

2007-10-31 16:38:24 · answer #4 · answered by Curious J, Esq. 6 · 1 0

The Trial Lawyers Association could only dream that they would be.

Using Federal funds to sue a Congressman to be paid with taxpayers money on winning. An endless circle of money transfers ---

2007-10-31 16:51:21 · answer #5 · answered by KarenL 6 · 0 0

Breach of election promise is punishable by voting out of office the next time around.

2007-10-31 16:38:28 · answer #6 · answered by ima_super_geek 4 · 1 0

Politicians make promises to get votes. In order to get votes from one group, they need to make promises that contradict promises made to another. It has happened all through American history. Lincoln campaigned simultaneously on pro and anti slavery platforms, depending on who he was speaking to. Look at Guilianni and gun control.

2007-10-31 16:38:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

First: Election Promises are a myth
2nd: All politicians are liars
3rd: Do you know how to tell if a polotician is lying? His mouth moves...

2007-10-31 16:38:34 · answer #8 · answered by ♥STREAKER♥©℗† 7 · 1 0

We already have a remedy for broken promises. We can vote them out.

2007-10-31 16:37:07 · answer #9 · answered by raichasays 7 · 1 0

Hell no it is a lie to get you to vote for them,

the person can always blame the other party for obstructing them and there you have it.

2007-10-31 16:38:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers