Voters rights and insuffient promises

**Ragabash** · December 28, 2006, 05:58 AM

Lately I have been quite dissatisfied and dissapointed to our politicians and their promises here in Finland.

I would like to see some sort of council or similiar created to protect voters for utter lies and insufficient promises that politicians and their parties tend to give just before elections.

Of course some of the promises might fail, but this is not the grand idea, the council(?) would have right to determine what promises have been given in wrong light to blur voters vision and what have been simple failed for some other reason.

This would stop all those insane and meaningless promises that candinates and parties tend to throw for plebs just before elections.

Now discuss and tell me what you think about it.

**Tiwaz** · December 28, 2006, 06:13 AM

What? And potentially force our candidates to avoid lying with every breath?

Honestly, we wouldn't see same face in parliament two times in a row in such system. (of course first they would make it so that you get full pension from one run instead of current 2 or 3)

**Ragabash** · December 28, 2006, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by Tiwaz

What? And potentially force our candidates to avoid lying with every breath?

Honestly, we wouldn't see same face in parliament two times in a row in such system. (of course first they would make it so that you get full pension from one run instead of current 2 or 3)

This kind of system might seem to be radical for the first few years, but once it would balance out, it would make candinates more wary to give out false promises.

**Tiwaz** · December 28, 2006, 06:32 AM

Problem would be the board which is supposed to watch the parliament. Who and how would appoint them?
And how we would avoid possible corruption (in this case through "good brother" -system since we have pretty little monetary corruption)?

**Ragabash** · December 28, 2006, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by Tiwaz

And how we would avoid possible corruption (in this case through "good brother" -system since we have pretty little monetary corruption)?

Same question could be asked about other offices that look up after citizens rights or the actual goverement, still they exist and benefit the citizens. There will be always corrpution but do we want that alone stop us cherish our rights.

Originally Posted by Foytaz

Every system corrupts itself sooner or later it's just matter of few circumstances(internal/external). Systems to control other system fall as well - I don't think human nature could change for good. Maybe "something-close-to-Matrix" is an option, I mean to create/develop program to watch and protect...but always hackers, crackers are avalable for hire anytime, anywhere...

Lets not go that far in this thread, please. This is not about the movies, human nature, but real life politics.

**KaerMorhen** · December 28, 2006, 06:49 AM

Every system corrupts itself sooner or later it's just matter of few circumstances(internal/external). Systems to control other system fall as well - I don't think human nature could change for good. Maybe "something-close-to-Matrix" is an option, I mean to create/develop program to watch and protect...but always hackers, crackers are avalable for hire anytime, anywhere...

**Tiwaz** · December 28, 2006, 06:59 AM

I am not talking about violating citizens rights, but rather how such organisation like one described, should some government be insane enough to make such law, would be too lenient towards the government.

Odds of being able to keep these two groups so separated that they can look objectively on one another are rather slim in country this small. Specially if government could appoint the people in watchdog organisation or even appoint the appointer.

**Ragabash** · December 28, 2006, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by Tiwaz

I am not talking about violating citizens rights, but rather how such organisation like one described, should some government be insane enough to make such law, would be too lenient towards the government.

Times change, even democracy does, of course this is something that would take some time to get started but we can always dream, can't we?

Originally Posted by Tiwaz

Odds of being able to keep these two groups so separated that they can look objectively on one another are rather slim in country this small. Specially if government could appoint the people in watchdog organisation or even appoint the appointer.

That is a bigger problem, yes, but I don't see this as an obstacle to prevent system like this working.

**Tiwaz** · December 28, 2006, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by Ragabash

Times change, even democracy does, of course this is something that would take some time to get started but we can always dream, can't we?

I'm all for silly dreams. I would love to see our leaders, actually globally, responsible for their actions. Having our incompetent fools who only line their pockets taken to court where Bush is facing charges for crimes against humanity is my dear dream.

That is a bigger problem, yes, but I don't see this as an obstacle to prevent system like this working.

It is a problem as long as we have transparent system where both sides, government and watchdog, know each other. We would have to somehow separate actions and person to make sure everyone is judged by their deeds instead of their persona.

I have once suggested one system which _might_ provide such situation but it was for completely different scenario. Simply put one where there were multiple separate groups of psychologists evaluating people and they were expected to come reasonably close in their estimates. (possibly with punishment for group which erred too far from concensus)

**Ragabash** · December 28, 2006, 07:08 AM

Double post, apologies, please delete this.

**leeho730** · December 28, 2006, 07:58 AM

It's similar here, but our supreme court is working quite well at this stage. For example, the supreme court ordered most major political parties to pay back the amount of election fund they spent above the legal limit. Suffice to say most parties were unhappy, especially Labour party who were in power, but they had to follow the order.

The Supreme court of NZ provides services and advice on constitutional issues, access to justice, human rights and Bill of Rights, family law, medico-legal, commercial, property and regulatory law issues and the electoral system (http://www.justice.govt.nz/ministry/).

Frankly speaking, Finland and NZ have some of the most transparent government in the world and we're still finding liars among politicians quite often. I believe this is inherently resulted from people making career out of becoming politician.

**KaerMorhen** · December 28, 2006, 07:58 AM

Let's stand it clear: Politica is about efficiency not morality so expecting politicians to behave moral is naive to me. Ask yourselves - how many of them come to work for public service and how many for personal ambitions and purposes???. Even the best among them have to commit decisions far from ethic and morality cause of necessity - so maybe stop dreaming!!!

**Tiwaz** · December 28, 2006, 08:27 AM

Actually, they are incredibly inefficient. They spend most of their time getting big raise or justifying that raise to their voters instead of improving the nation in even corrupt way.

They commit decisions for their own advantage, not for the benefit of nation. I would not have problems with them being immoral if they were benefiting me and my country in the process.

**KaerMorhen** · December 28, 2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by Tiwaz

Actually, they are incredibly inefficient. They spend most of their time getting big raise or justifying that raise to their voters instead of improving the nation in even corrupt way.

They commit decisions for their own advantage, not for the benefit of nation. I would not have problems with them being immoral if they were benefiting me and my country in the process.

yes you're right when talking about their inefficiency I 100% agree. I just meant that politicians and morality are two opposite polars. I don't know much about Finnland's political scene but it'll be hard to find worst than we have in Poland right now.

**Erik** · December 28, 2006, 03:08 PM

We have an independent scientific bureau that calculates the effects of each parties election plan will have on economic growth, job availability, consumer budgets etc. etc.

The main criticism they get is that they don't provide a complete picture because they can only calculate certain measurable effects so certain subjects like pollution are ignored.
And they only calculate the effects on the mid term (about 5 years), so long term investments like education don't score any points.

It's not perfect but at least it prevents politicians from making false claims like "vote for me and the economy will grow by 10% annually".

I don't think you can have anyone imposing limits on politicians because such a group or organization would become more powerful than the politicians which either means the end of democracy or you will make them electable as well in which case you'll get the same problem again.
Democracy is never perfect.

Originally Posted by Tiwaz

Actually, they are incredibly inefficient. They spend most of their time getting big raise or justifying that raise to their voters instead of improving the nation in even corrupt way.

They commit decisions for their own advantage, not for the benefit of nation. I would not have problems with them being immoral if they were benefiting me and my country in the process.

Finland is one of the wealthiest and most livable countries in the world, so surely they can't be that bad.

The only thing I dislike about our politicians is their general lack of on-topic knowledge.
A degree in sociology isn't a qualification for a minister of finance, IMHO.
On the other hand having a minister of agriculture who is also a farmer himself creates conflicts of interests. ("Hmmmm....how much subsidies will I give myself this year?....")

**Tiwaz** · December 29, 2006, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by Erik

Finland is one of the wealthiest and most livable countries in the world, so surely they can't be that bad.

The only thing I dislike about our politicians is their general lack of on-topic knowledge.
A degree in sociology isn't a qualification for a minister of finance, IMHO.
On the other hand having a minister of agriculture who is also a farmer himself creates conflicts of interests. ("Hmmmm....how much subsidies will I give myself this year?....")

We are heading for new crash at this rate. Soon the big babyboom generation will go to pension, requiring smaller workforce to cover their expenses. Result can be twofold, runaway outsourcing or critical lack of workforce (and after that either uncontrolled immigration or outsourcing).

Not to mention how our politicians are covered by their fellow politicians. In one thing stronly polar US system is reasonably good. It can give incentive for political groups to really go after one another tooth and nail, even if it goes overboard (who the hell cares if president gets a blowjob).

Over here nobody except press raises hell when politicians do something like reducing debt of guy who should be in jail. (can't remember story exactly but man did some economic crime, resulted in big payment. our bloody minister of economics cut the payment amount to fraction even though criminal could have had plenty of property to sell to cover it, and good income. And don't get me started over insane option payments for leaders of corporations in whichFinland has notable ownership, and this while they are laying off people to make budget look better)

**Erik** · December 29, 2006, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Tiwaz

We are heading for new crash at this rate. Soon the big babyboom generation will go to pension, requiring smaller workforce to cover their expenses.

It's you and only the rest of Europe that has this problem.
But I agree: politicians generally fail to handle those long-term problems.

I think they are OK for mid-term planning (aprox. 4 years or until the next elections) but for longer term they usually don't make enough investments.

Result can be twofold, runaway outsourcing or critical lack of workforce (and after that either uncontrolled immigration or outsourcing).

Or controlled immigration from countries like Poland, because that seems the most logical solution.

And I actually don't think it will be that bad for the richer countries in Europe.
The baby-boomers have a LOT of money, and they will spend most of it during the next decades which will be a great for the European economy.

And don't get me started over insane option payments for leaders of corporations in whichFinland has notable ownership, and this while they are laying off people to make budget look better)

That's more of problem with the free-market, isn't it?
Politicians could impose laws to ban excessive payments, and in some places they have, but many people still believe that the free-market will magically work everything out so they oppose such government interference.