Quote:
Originally Posted by GP_Matt
What if we setup a system where every candidate had to submit their campaign promises during the election. After their term limit is up (8 years or so) they have to sit down in front of an independent panel who reviews their platform and their actions over their term in office. If they achieved everything they promised they get a big fat pension. If they achieved less then they have to justify their reasons. The quality of their reasoning will affect what percentage of their pension they get to keep. If they made promises that were unattainable (and they should have known that) they get nothing.
|
Well, something that black and white might be tough as there's plenty of reasons why a politician might not be able to achieve their campaign promises, that may not be their fault. Especially when it comes to issues liked to the economy. But I would be in favor of some sort of system that encourages or enforces greater accountability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Isn't that what the voters are supposed to do?
Do we really need another body or panel for that? or should the citizens just take it upon themselves to practice their right to vote?
As it stands right now, Politicians count on voters not doing their home work and not bothering to vote.
|
It's a sensible thought, and one we should try to achieve, but probably as likely as a land of chocolate and rainbows. One, which you said right in your post, a lot of voters don't bother. And while the people on this board are pretty informed, none of us have a magic wand that we could wave to make the voting public more like us. I guess there are small things society and the government can do, but they never really show much fruit other than a bump here or there. Plus, the government seems to be part of the problem anyway. Isn't the CPC battling with Elections Canada over things of this very issue right now? Regardless, it just isn't going to change, you can't force people to care, and there'll always be stupid people too.
Secondly, which is another problem here for this very example, is that often there doesn't seem to be a better alternative. As it stands today, I would not vote Wildrose. I just wouldn't. I am open to voting for them, and depending on how they campaign this time around, I could. I really want to in fact. But unless they can reign in a bit of the ultra right wing bat-poop crazy, and show me a budget plan that actually makes a little bit of sense, I just can't so it. You may disagree with me and people like me, but these are valid concerns, and it doesn't even all come down to one issue or scandal. There are a lot of us, who just feel there is no other alternative. Well, I feel the Liberals are worth a shot, but there's going to be even less support for that, and I probably feel the way about people not voting for them, as Wildrose supporters do for people not wanting to support them. So it does go both ways.
So a little extra accountability measures wouldn't bug me at all, I'd be all for it. Hell, the argument is often made that we're getting to a point where politicians aren't paid enough to really attract the quality people. If that's so, ramp up their salaries, but keep them accountable. Pensions can be lost, benefits can be axed, people can lose their jobs.