Party Platform Development Thread: Expectations

[POA]

I'm starting this thread in order to discuss issues of how we would want politicians to act, not only as far as their status towards the rest of the party is concerned, but also how they act towards the people they're representing.

Here are the ideas that I have so far:

1) Politicians should come back to their (districts, states, et cetera) and have a public question and answer session with their constituents (randomly determined). I included this in Constitution II.

Of course they're going to be busy and perhaps they could only do this once every month or two, but as an idea this serves several different purposes.

One of these purposes is that it helps to build a sense of confidence that politicians from our party do genuinely represent the people who elect them, and it allows for people to interact with them on a regular basis. It also helps to build on the idea that politics should be participatory, instead of top-down.

Another purpose served is that it would also be outstanding publicity, especially compared to the way that most politicians from both parties seem to do business. They return to their states or their districts, go to a $1.5K/person (or more) fundraising dinner or speaking club, and nobody ever sees them but the rich.

2) It should be possible to throw politicians out of the party for being corrupt or for acting analogous to Zell Miller (perhaps that almost deserves a new word-Milleresque). It shouldn't be easy because this sort of measure isn't a toy, but it also shouldn't be impossible. Furthermore, this has to actually mean something in terms of their status as far as the party is concerned. ie, there shouldn't be a stable of corrupt former-politicians like Torricelli lingering around so people like Kerry can pay them off to do dirty work.

3) Politicians shouldn't be able to swing votes within the party as any kind of coherent bloc. This is one of the mechanisms of DLC control that I've discussed in another thread. One mechanism to prevent this might be to put a percentage limit on how many politicians could act as delegates (if we even want a system like this), and then randomly determine which politicians get to also be delegates, so that way you don't get potential cherrypicking from party officials to find people who agree with them.

Politicians work for the people who elect them-people who elect them shouldn't have to beg for politicians to represent them.

4) Fundraising should not be regarded as the single most important priority in the party, and it shouldn't be regarded as a fast ticket to any kind of real status in the party. This is one of the biggest mistake that the Democrats have made-people who have a lot of status as fundraisers end up with party positions and this naturally doesn't guarantee, at all, that they know anything about how to represent voters or their base.

[Ropegun]

I believe the original members of congress were afforded 4 months at the end of sessions to go back home and consult with constituents. I think this is reasonable. 8 months passing law and 4 months answering for what they've done in the name of the poeple.

Elected officials should be subject to recall and the like not only by colleagues but by the people. Like you say, it should'nt be easy, but it should be possible within a reasonable timeframe. Waiting 2 years to get someone out of office that lied his way in should not be the norm.

Elected officials must be bound by oath to reprsent the views of those who elected them. Period.

If private campaign donations were banned or substantially reduced, fundraising would be a non-issue.
We've discussed this in the Constitution thread if I recall.

[spikeb]

I think one of the more important things is TOWING THE PARTY LINE. Not in the negative sense, in the POSITIVE sense. You're a member of Party A. You _must_ vote in line with the party's platform. That is how the party system is supposed to work. You vote for members of parties because of their parties platforms. This is extremely important and cannot be stressed enough. If you don't agree with the party platform, either don't join or try and change it. Don't vote in contrary to it.

[POA]

Ropegun said:

I believe the original members of congress were afforded 4 months at the end of sessions to go back home and consult with constituents. I think this is reasonable. 8 months passing law and 4 months answering for what they've done in the name of the poeple.

Elected officials should be subject to recall and the like not only by colleagues but by the people. Like you say, it should'nt be easy, but it should be possible within a reasonable timeframe. Waiting 2 years to get someone out of office that lied his way in should not be the norm.

Elected officials must be bound by oath to reprsent the views of those who elected them. Period.

If private campaign donations were banned or substantially reduced, fundraising would be a non-issue.
We've discussed this in the Constitution thread if I recall.

I agree with you about recalling elected officials, and this was one of the provisions of the Constitution that I wrote (although the California recall was something of a mess). I'll also do a check to see which states have substantial (and convenient) recall provisions already, and perhaps which states might be amenable to such a change.

I'll add 'representing the views of those citizens who elected me' to the oath of office in the next upgrade of said Constitution.

[spikeb]

Assuming you're making a party based system, representing the views of those who elected you is moot. they elect you on the basis of your party platform.