Submitted May 11, 2025, by Anonymous:
Americans are so used to politicians falsely promising to get elected and then reneging that they don’t seem to consider there is an alternative: The promise and the vote are, in effect, a contract made between two parties and if one side does not fulfill the contract, the other can sue for fraud or breach of contract or the like. If not, why not?
Arguably, the system really should be something like this: Politician Smith promises under the following categories to pass various laws or to implement policies using, e.g., an Executive Order:
Absolutely guaranteed because it is within Smith’s power (for instance, an Executive Order in the case of a President or Governor);
Partially guaranteed because legislatures need to draft and approve a proposed law;
No guarantee whatsoever — “best try.”
C is clearly worthless and anyone voting for Smith because (s)he says something under C should probably not complain (unless Smith does not even try).
B, of course, depends on the legislatures, too, and if Smith tries to implement a policy and the legislatures do not approve, it is not X’s fault, but at least voters can now vote the legislators out in the next election. However, B at least requires Smith to have reasonably tried to get legislatures to draft the relevant law, and, if Smith is a legislator, to have drafted a law consistent with the earlier promises during the election.
A, though, is clear. If Smith promises a policy under A and then does not follow through after being elected, any citizen who voted for “him” can sue. Whether Smith, then, is removed from office through impeachment or other means needs to be determined, but obviously, if we want a just system, some very meaningful punishment has to occur so that (s)he or other politicians in the future do not promise what they cannot, or won’t, deliver. The better system, then, is that politicians produce a detailed contract-draft of their commitments, whether under A, B, or C far enough in advance of election day so that voters know whom they can trust.
You wouldn’t replace your windows or roof without a contract, would you? Why would you put someone in power over many facets of your life without equal or proportional protection?