Does A Politician-Elect Lose Legitimacy If He Breaks an Election Promise?

[Exarch]

Our great and noble system of democracy which we wish to impose on other cultures and peoples is truly great; but i must confess, i have been having doubts about it lately.
Democracies are considered good and universally benign because they imply a sense of legitimacy based on voter consensus.
However, my question:

Namely, if, hypothetically in the spirit of democracy, you were to elect a politician on the platform of 'lower taxes' and that politician got elected into office, but broke that election promise and instead raised taxes; well then doesnt that just nullify that politicians' legitimacy? and it doesnt matter how much that politician goes on and on about 'non core promises' etc, he still broke that election promise, broke his word to those who voted him in (no jokes on lying politician SOBs).

Doesnt that breaking of an election promise constitute a breach in an unwritten contracual obligation since he was voted in to lower taxes but didnt?
doesnt that then mean that the politician elect is no longer legitimate in the eyes of democracy?
because if not, it seems we dont live in a democracy at all; we only get demoracy once every 4 yrs!

Discuss

[B5C]

You should expect a politician not to keep an election promise. That is what we are used too in the United States.

[Exarch]

You should expect a politician not to keep an election promise. That is what we are used too in the United States.

well of course, but it's not how democracy is meant to work; while i do share your cynicism about modern democracies, there should be some sort of mechanism to enforce a politician into keeping an election promise.

i suggest they amputate a limb if they break a campaign promise

[Big War Bird]

well of course, but it's not how democracy is meant to work; while i do share your cynicism about modern democracies, there should be some sort of mechanism to enforce a politician into keeping an election promise.

There is such a mechanism - It is called the next election.

[Exarch]

There is such a mechanism - It is called the next election.

having to wait 4 yrs is too long and some wily politicians will find some wedge issue around election time to brainwash the electorate;

no, i still think they ought to lose a finger if they break a promise, since i consider that vote stealing

[boofhead]

Our great and noble system of democracy which we wish to impose on other cultures and peoples is truly great; but i must confess, i have been having doubts about it lately.
Democracies are considered good and universally benign because they imply a sense of legitimacy based on voter consensus.
However, my question:

Namely, if, hypothetically in the spirit of democracy, you were to elect a politician on the platform of 'lower taxes' and that politician got elected into office, but broke that election promise and instead raised taxes; well then doesnt that just nullify that politicians' legitimacy? and it doesnt matter how much that politician goes on and on about 'non core promises' etc, he still broke that election promise, broke his word to those who voted him in (no jokes on lying politician SOBs).

Doesnt that breaking of an election promise constitute a breach in an unwritten contracual obligation since he was voted in to lower taxes but didnt?
doesnt that then mean that the politician elect is no longer legitimate in the eyes of democracy?
because if not, it seems we dont live in a democracy at all; we only get demoracy once every 4 yrs!

Discuss

I think it should be grounds for a re-election.

In Australia it's common knowledge that politicians lie thru their arses. And yet because there is little alternative it's vote for the liar or for the other liar. You may not get what you wanted, in fact you probably won't in either case.

But you see, all bills are dependent upon lower house (senate) agreement so all politicians should have to declare that their promises are dependent on various majorities. In which case they weren't promises in the first place, they were conditional fairy floss.

[k995]

Our great and noble system of democracy which we wish to impose on other cultures and peoples is truly great; but i must confess, i have been having doubts about it lately.
Democracies are considered good and universally benign because they imply a sense of legitimacy based on voter consensus.
However, my question:

Namely, if, hypothetically in the spirit of democracy, you were to elect a politician on the platform of 'lower taxes' and that politician got elected into office, but broke that election promise and instead raised taxes; well then doesnt that just nullify that politicians' legitimacy? and it doesnt matter how much that politician goes on and on about 'non core promises' etc, he still broke that election promise, broke his word to those who voted him in (no jokes on lying politician SOBs).

Doesnt that breaking of an election promise constitute a breach in an unwritten contracual obligation since he was voted in to lower taxes but didnt?
doesnt that then mean that the politician elect is no longer legitimate in the eyes of democracy?
because if not, it seems we dont live in a democracy at all; we only get demoracy once every 4 yrs!

Discuss

Thats not how democracy works, you dont really vote for the idea's, you vote for the person. You elect someone who you think is going to do the best. So yes of course his idea's are important but its even more important to know if it have what it takes to gouvern a country/region.

Take your example, he says lowering taxes is the way to go because the economy is doing fine, then we have a crisis wich makes that raising taxes is in the ebst intrest of the country. Would ha continue with a policy he knows will harm its own voters? That would be stupid.

[Exarch]

Thats not how democracy works, you dont really vote for the idea's, you vote for the person. You elect someone who you think is going to do the best. So yes of course his idea's are important but its even more important to know if it have what it takes to gouvern a country/region.

Take your example, he says lowering taxes is the way to go because the economy is doing fine, then we have a crisis wich makes that raising taxes is in the ebst intrest of the country. Would ha continue with a policy he knows will harm its own voters? That would be stupid.

the majority of voters-at least in australia-tend to be quite pragmatic; a small proportion actively consistently vote for the same parties or exhibit die-hard party loyalty. in a sense, we're all swing voters;

when i'm voting someone in, i'm thinking of the candidate as a job applicant; he says, no he promises he's going to do this and that once in office in order to secure my vote. thusly, i vote for him.
when he breaks that election promise-that promise which secured my vote for him-where the hell does that leave me? the technical term for that situation is ed.

i dont vote someone in because of his personality or his whoring or his cocaine abuse, because as far as i'm concerned, they're not relevant to his job as a politician so long as he does the job (this is my same attitude towards me colleagues anyhow). his personality is immaterial to the job at hand; what i want to know is what he's goingto do with xyz scenario, about xyz issues. that's how demoracy is supposed to work.

[boofhead]

i dont vote someone in because of his personality or his whoring or his cocaine abuse, because as far as i'm concerned, they're not relevant to his job as a politician so long as he does the job (this is my same attitude towards me colleagues anyhow). his personality is immaterial to the job at hand; what i want to know is what he's goingto do with xyz scenario, about xyz issues. that's how demoracy is supposed to work.

I've been working in the real world for 20yrs. If you're all mouth and little substance you don't last long unless you're an ''under the wing'' case (nepotism). Seriously,

How come an incompetent politician gets 3 or 4 years rule?

[Exarch]

I've been working in the real world for 20yrs. If you're all mouth and little substance you don't last long unless you're an ''under the wing'' case (nepotism). Seriously,

How come an incompetent politician gets 3 or 4 years rule?

indeed; it's the same the world over; take the political class in the USa as a classic example of nepotism; most of the political power in Washington is centred around WASP families with their wealth and connections, eg Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons, etc etc etc.
but i'm pretty disillusioned with liberal democracies anyhow;

a politician should be made ot keep his election promises; word of honour used to mean something; now it means .

[k995]

the majority of voters-at least in australia-tend to be quite pragmatic; a small proportion actively consistently vote for the same parties or exhibit die-hard party loyalty. in a sense, we're all swing voters;

when i'm voting someone in, i'm thinking of the candidate as a job applicant; he says, no he promises he's going to do this and that once in office in order to secure my vote. thusly, i vote for him.
when he breaks that election promise-that promise which secured my vote for him-where the hell does that leave me? the technical term for that situation is ed.

Yes but we are talking here about changing curcumstances.

So to follow up on your example, you hire someone to stampe letters and then switch to just emails. Are you going to keep letting him stamp letters because thats whay you hired him for ? No he has to adjust to email and if he cant he's out.

i dont vote someone in because of his personality or his whoring or his cocaine abuse, because as far as i'm concerned, they're not relevant to his job as a politician so long as he does the job (this is my same attitude towards me colleagues anyhow). his personality is immaterial to the job at hand; what i want to know is what he's goingto do with xyz scenario, about xyz issues. that's how demoracy is supposed to work.

I didnt talk about his personality I am talking that its quit easy to make up slogans and nice theorys on how things should get done, its quit different putting that into reality in gouv.

[Exarch]

Yes but we are talking here about changing curcumstances.

So to follow up on your example, you hire someone to stampe letters and then switch to just emails. Are you going to keep letting him stamp letters because thats whay you hired him for ? No he has to adjust to email and if he cant he's out. .

there's a world of difference between stamping letters and raising/lowering taxes/government policy.

I didnt talk about his personality I am talking that its quit easy to make up slogans and nice theorys on how things should get done, its quit different putting that into reality in gouv

then why do politicians make promises they cant keep?

just to get elected into a cushy 7 figure salary? that's corruption.

[spanish_emperor]

all politicians are hypocrites. If you vote because you feel someone is a 'good' and reliable person who doesn't wish power then you might as well donkey vote.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I think if Obama was able to pass healthcare reform as he promised in 2007 and 2008 than we wouldnt be having many of these discussions in the mudpit. With that said it is not so easy for pres to pass bills as they can not simply snap their fingers and wish something into law.

[roy34543]

You could always vote for the most reliable canidates like these guys

strange incident involving a fictitious write-in candidacy occurred in the small town of Picoazà, Ecuador in 1967. A company ran a series of campaign-themed advertisements for a foot powder called Pulvapies. Some of the slogans used included "Vote for any candidate, but if you want well-being and hygiene, vote for Pulvapies", and "For Mayor: Honorable Pulvapies." The foot powder Pulvapies ended up receiving the most votes in the election

[Phier]

I think the problem with Bush was he kept to many promises.

I thought "compassionate conservative" was a lie

[justicar5]

I think the problem with Bush was he kept to many promises.

I thought "compassionate conservative" was a lie

it was.

[Phier]

it was.

*sigh* You really need to stop posting on subjects you know nothing about. AKA anything involving US politics and policy.

[justicar5]

*sigh* You really need to stop posting on subjects you know nothing about. AKA anything involving US politics and policy.

it was 'conservative' it conserved the place of the rich at the top getting ever richer, and conservef the place of the poor at the bottom getting ever poorer as corporate exploitation increases year on year. The compassion was for wall street, saving them from their own reclessness while letting everyone twist in the breeze. Everything else was business as usual, religion intruding on peoples lives in new and interesting ways, rights being stripped from or denied to groups that didn't fit the WASP view of what a family should be, yup american conservatism at it's finest.

Oh and I call hypocrite, you keep commenting on european politics, so pot/kettle.

[Lordinquisitor]

He should.

Sadly, he doesn`t.