The Future of Litigation

To the best of my knowledge this hasn't happened yet, but I'm curious, when it does happen(and it will) how will you react.

Should politicians be held personally and legally accountable for campaign promises. That is to say, should a politician elected on his stance on taxes, that shows no good faith effort to follow through with his promises or even reverses that position, face disciplinary or litigious action? Is it that we've become so accustomed to taking campaign promises for granted as lies, that it never occurs to us to demand a higher standard, would campaign promises be protected under the first amendment, or is the whole idea so rife with ambiguity as to be inapplicable?

Defenders of Consumer Rights Sue Politician For Unfulfilled Campaign Promises!!!

No. They lie. We all know they lie.

""Read my lips: no new taxes.""

Lies like that should require being drug out into the street and beaten with clubs as punishment. So sure, punish politicians who lie.

No. They lie. We all know they lie.

Umm, I think that''s his point? To stop that. At least publically.
So yeah, some kind of independent organism should hold a politician liable for the things he promised.

"Mex" wrote:
No. They lie. We all know they lie.

Umm, I think that''s his point? To stop that. At least publically.
So yeah, some kind of independent organism should hold a politician liable for the things he promised.

It''s stupid. If I say that I''m going to cut taxes and Congress doesn''t let me, should I get sued?

Just to clear it up Ulairi, I think hes saying if it is shown that you made no effort whatsoever to keep your promise or even reversed your position should you be held liable.

But I think its not a good idea. Lets put it this way, what if in the 2000 election you ran on the platform of reducing airfare, therefore helping the airline industry and helping the economy by reducing security requirements? Should you be held liable that you have now changed your position?

Or another example. How about you ran in 1998 that you were going to increase taxes on the ""dot com"" companies and lower taxes for the average person (or spend it on education or whatever) by profiting off of thier booming industry.

All this would accomplish is forcing politicians to make token efforts toward a promise, but still not getting results when it didn''t suit them. Politicans are probably some of the best there is at lying, were not really going to get them to cooperate unless they want to. The only way to get a politician''s attention is to hit them where it counts, the votes.

You can''t really prosecute someone for something like that. Circumstances change, and sometimes policy must change to reflect it.

If politicians were liable for not keeping campaign promises, no one smart would ever run for office.

Why should someone run for office if all the thanks they will ever get is a nice big lawsuit?

Why should someone run for office if all the thanks they will ever get is a nice big lawsuit?

One also wonders why one would want to be a doctor, policeman, or video game developer for that very same reason.

I would like to point out that lawsuits aren''t the only way of holding someone accountable.

Yeah, you can also poke them with a pointy stick.

You guys really think it is impossible? I mean, there should be some form of evaluation, some way to make people accountable for what they do, no? I don''t hire an employee and let him do whatever the hell he wants just because he lied on his application. Come on!

Lying on an application is different from lying during a campaign. On an application, you lie about what you have done, in a campaign you lie about what youre going to do. That was my point, you cant predict the future. If a Senator says ""I have never had sex with underage boys"" and is proven wrong, hell yes there will be penalties, that system is already in place.

We should treat politicans like we do employees, if they dont do thier job, then fire them. Dont sue them because they are incompetent.

That would be fine, if we didn''t have to wait 4 or 6 years to get rid of them.

"Elysium" wrote:

That would be fine, if we didn''t have to wait 4 or 6 years to get rid of them.

2-6 years.

There are days where I seriously think about removing that little emoticon bar.

Do I need to fetch a bucket of cold water?

Elysium, how do you think litigation would solve the problem?
First, like I said above, they can''t predict the future, should they be held liable for changes in the situation?
Second, even if nothing changes, how do you measure effort? If they spend X minutes working on the problem, its okay, but X-1 minutes and they get sued? Who determines the time spent?
Third, if this does become effective, what kind of person will this attract into office? Nobody seriously believes that they can keep all thier campaign promises, but maybe they can keep a few. If you don''t even run unless you plan to get everything done, only the extremely gullable will run for office.

I''m not sure why you think I''m supporting a position. I just asked the question to spark debate, not to suggest a position.

"Elysium" wrote:

I''m not sure why you think I''m supporting a position. I just asked the question to spark debate, not to suggest a position.

Okay, I misread. I guess you were getting annoyed at Ulairi for the google eyes. My bad.

I will give offerings to Reaper in pennance.

Lo! and Reaper made the googly eyes. And saw that it was good. And man cherished the googly eyes. And praised the almighty Reaper with gifts and Pyroman sacrifices. And the land prospered. Hallelujah!

naw, if you can sue for that, then we''re in a whole heap load of trouble.

Let me put on my impressive, ""nyah nyah, I''m-quoting-someone smarter-then-you-which-makes-me-smarter-then-you"" cap:

George Bernard Shaw in Pygmalion: ""Its bad enough we say what we think we want others to hear, if we truly said what was on our mind, we''d bring the whole show down.""

We''re a society based on lies, we have to be. If we all spoke the truth, things would be ugly, so we lie to save face, lie to make you feel better about yourself and so on...

In those cases where a politician lies, we have the option, indeed, the duty, not to re-elect him.

Politicans can''t be blamed for representing ignorant and lazy voters. We deserve everything we get, b/c we don''t demand better.

Is this how our fall of the Roman Empire will be?

We are lazy voters and demand nothing of our candidates. We will elect someone just because he''s the guy not in the other party. The lesser of two evils is all too common in elections these days. Or we re-elect someone just so we dont lose a commitee seat in the senate.

Potentially great candidates will never run due to the risk of zealous media scrutiny. Of course, we the public gobble that up at every turn.