Control over the Government

[Agent 008]

So, the Governments in most (if not all) countries, have a lot of power, but zero responsibilities.

How so?

Well, the worst that could happen to, say, the President (Prime Minister), is that he doesn't get re-elected.

Now, say, a bus driver, that makes a mistake that leads to the deaths and injuries of his passengers, gets punished.

But presidents, members of parliaments, senators - people, who's decisions affect millions of lives, are not being punished for their mistakes. Making them one of the most irresponsible categories of citizens.

Now, I reckon this can be fixed.

Why do we even have a government? Different people will probably give different answers. Let's say we have the government to organise the population to protect the nation (now and in the future) from degradation. It's not that important here.

Now, why don't we make failure to carry out the task well a crime, that never expires? And the judges for this crime are all the people living under the jurisdiction of the governor.

How can it be carried out? Well, every elections we have, we can also have a separate vote on how the previous governor managed to cope with his responsibilities. It can have three options: "Worthy of a gratitude", "Earned a punishment", and "No consequences".

If more than half of registered voters decide that he needs to be punished, he serves a jail time equal to the amount of time he spent in office.

If more than half say he's worthy of a gratitude, he gets a high award.

Otherwise nothing happens.

Now, if he is to serve a jail time, but at the same time gets re-elected, his punishment is delayed till he is out of office. BUT - during the next voting on him, if the verdict this time is "gratitude", his jail sentence gets cancelled. "No consequences" cuts the sentence in half. "Punishment" adds time to his current sentence.

And because the crime never expires, at any point in time, if new circumstances come up, a nation-wide referendum can be called to judge any elected person of the past, to either rehabilitate him, punish him, or award him.

That sounds like a pretty good idea to me, and I reckon it's something that would make the government more effective, and encourage them to talk to their people more and explain their actions, especially the non-popular ones.

Thoughts?

[ChickenOfDoom]

Originally Posted by Agent 008

the worst that could happen to, say, the President (Prime Minister), is that he doesn't get re-elected.

This is equivalent to being fired. It's like having an employee; if they do their job badly enough, you can fire them and deprive them of the ability to do that job, making it harder for them to get jobs elsewhere and seriously messing with their life.

The actions of a politician are not consequence free. To attain an office like that takes years of effort, and a reputation as a total fuckup ruins it all.

[Mantikore]

the problem i see with having the people vote for whether the said politician is guilty of any crims is similar to that of many court cases. often, it is nearly impossible to find an impartial jury, and this could lead to a person being convicted even if they were within their legal power to do what they did during their administration.

if the people are too emotionally involved, they might convict someone for something that was out of his power. a bit like what happened in the early years of the weimar republic

[Defect]

Originally Posted by Mantikore

if the people are too emotionally involved, they might convict someone for something that was out of his power. a bit like what happened in the early years of the weimar republic

I agree. The problem with your idea I think is that puts more reward in looking good rather than being good.

[Big Steamers]

You are looking at the government as though they are some kind of organized boogyman. Thankfully, people like yourself will never be able to do much more than stand around the watercooler and debate the 'scary' things the gubament does.

[Agent 008]

Originally Posted by Big Steamers

You are looking at the government as though they are some kind of organized boogyman. Thankfully, people like yourself will never be able to do much more than stand around the watercooler and debate the 'scary' things the gubament does.

No, I'm not. The government is employed by the people to do their job. The more direct control the people have over the government, the better, right? Otherwise they might start thinking that the people are there for the government, and not the government there for the people. It's only natural. And what I'm suggesting in this thread is increasing the price the President has to pay for the mistakes.

Otherwise, if the President is in his second term, in the worst case he's going to get fired. Well, it's not like he can get re-elected again anyway, so what's the big deal?
With the increased price for their mistakes, it'll make sure they're working hard till the very end.

The problem with your idea I think is that puts more reward in looking good rather than being good.

But the crime never expires. If their actions "look good", but in 15 years result in a disaster, a nationwide referendum can be called to judge them.

Same if it's found out that the unpopular measures were actually quite useful - they can be rehabilitated.

Every citizens acts like a judge here. If the president has to make an unpopular decision that he's convinced would benefit the country in the future (e.g. raise taxes, go to war) - well, he'll be more inclined to try and convince the population that it's a good idea and explain what would happen if this action is not taken. Maybe go and debate that with someone from the opposition who opposes the decision.

It's not much of a democracy, if the government is allowed to make decisions that the people (who employ the government) are against?

I'm obviously not 100% convinced it's a good idea myself. That's why I started this thread, to see the arguments for and against. In theory, it does somewhat make sense to me.

[Mantikore]

also, im seeing a really thin line between guilt and innocence here

for example, what if 50.000000000000001% vote for guilt? complete acquital and 15 years in the slammer could lay with just one vote. and what if that one vote was by some retarded redneck or nigger?

[Knight of blacknes]

This wouldn't work out.

1. Every official would be to scared to do anything. If they act upon a situation and screw up, they're fucked. So they'd be inclined to do nothing and say: I didn't know about it.

2. Sometimes officials need to make unpopular choices. The "people" often don't know whats good for them and will vote to punish him eventhough his choice benefitted the nation.

3. This in turn leads to officials being scared to do anything. In the end you would end up with noone willing to take up an official seat.

5. Higher up officials, messing up badly, would just scapegoat officials lower on the ladder. This happens a lot already but would go extreme with such a system in place.

This system leaves the country in great danger. If officials are always second guessing their approaches to problems, other nations with much stronger leadership could easily use this weakeness. I won't give any examples but if you can't figure out why on your own then please stop concerning yourself with Government Management without first studying the matter.

[23]

Originally Posted by Agent 008

But presidents, members of parliaments, senators - people, who's decisions affect millions of lives, are not being punished for their mistakes. Making them one of the most irresponsible categories of citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVI_of_France

If a leader has fucked up bad enough, he's going to die.

[soul flayer]

I have a simpler idea:

Legalize assassinations for elected officials, who have a disapproval rating of 60% or greater. Once the elected official reaches this point, the Secret Service is only employed to protect him from foreign threats, and not domestic ones. A curtail shall also be placed on his or her overseas travel, so he doesn't try to live abroad, just to be safer.

This way, only the most determined, and competent individuals would seek public office. No more not getting re-elected/fired and then living off your multi-million dollar bank accounts.