Political party manifestos should be legally binding

In round 1, Con asked for three specific things: Clear explanation of enforcement mechanism. Arguments for why said enforcement mechanism would be effective. Arguments for why this would be beneficial to a democracy. Con believes that Pro has not sufficiently explained their enforcement mechanism and gave no arguments as to why it would be effective or beneficial. Seeing as how there is only 1 more round of debate, Con believes Pro has already conceded this debate since they should not present new arguments in Round 3 since Con would not have ample chance to cross examine them (although this restriction was not explicitly agreed upon).Pro proposes a system where parties would create legal documents explaining their intentions (he refers to them as manifestos). In these manifestos, the party would outline actions they plan to take and dates by which they plan to take them. This is a fairly vague statement since Pro does not define what types of actions parties should a) agree to or b) should be held accountable for. Pro's example appears to indicate that introducing legislation constitutes an action. Con would then ask, can actions be considered to be results? For instance, if the republican party promises to repeal "Obamacare" by 2016, introduces legislation to do so, but that legislation fails to pass, then does this constitute a breach of their manifesto agreement? If this would not be considered a breach, then Con sees no benefit to such a system. Con assumes that the purpose of Pro's resolution is so that when constituents vote, they have a guarantee that goals stated in the party's manifesto will actually happen. If a party is only required to try to achieve stated goals, then is it not possible that a party could make a very weak attempt that would almost certainly fail? Yet, in this case, by "trying", the party has abided by its manifesto. In this regard, if Pro means the manifesto should only include calls to action, then Con sees no benefit or purpose to Pro's resolution.On the other hand, if a party's manifesto may state goals that they intend to achieve, then Con sees this as unreasonable to expect from a party in a democracy. Take again the above example. The republicans do not hold the Senate or executive branch, so even if republicans made very vigorous attempts at repealing "Obamacare", they may fail. In this case, Pro would have legal action taken against party members even though they were trying, in good faith, to represent their constituents.Con appears to start to address the above issue by putting in a loop hole, where a court or panel would decide whether a) a failure to meet goals stated in the manifesto occurred or b) the party was justified in changing policies due to "unforeseen circumstances". First Con sees this as a concession that Pro's resolution is flawed and thus should not be implemented. Furthermore, why is a judicial panel (or the Supreme Court) qualified to make such judgements? Isn't this contrary to a democracy? If anyone should decide the party's fate, shouldn't it be the constituents? Also, what would constitute an unforeseen circumstance?Going again, with the "Obamacare" example, what if "Obamacare" caused health insurance premiums to significantly drop? Would this constitute an unforeseen circumstance? Wouldn't this actually be an example where goals that the constituents agreed to were bad goals? If constituents agree to bad goals and Pro's resolution forces their party to achieve those bad goals, then isn't this actually detrimental to a democracy not beneficial?Pro states two possible punishments when a breach occurs but offers no argument for why this would actually incentivize the party to not breach said goals, rather just states that it would. With this regard Pro has failed to provide BoP and thus has failed to prove that his enforcement mechanism would actually work.Also, Pro states that the opposition party would be responsible for pointing out breaches. What motivation does the opposition party have to point out a breach? If democrats promise nationalized health care and republicans promise to keep our current system but then republicans come on board with the democrats after the election, then why would the democrats want to point out the republicans' breach of their manifesto? It doesn't serve the opposition party's best interest to point out breaches if the breach is towards something the opposition party agrees with. In fact, one could make the argument that if an opposition party did point out a breach, that this would be working against the goals that they (the opposition party) promised to their constituents and grounds for a breach of manifesto by the opposition party!Pro completely fails to argue for why such a system would be beneficial to a democracy, instead merely states "...and so would lead to a more democratic country." Again, Pro has not met their BoP.In summary, Pro has not clearly stated what the enforcement mechanism would be, they have not provided any proof that their enforcement mechanism would work, and they have failed to provide any proof that their resolution would be beneficial. In lieu of proof that the enforcement mechanism would work, Con has actually argued it wouldn't work. In addition, Con has provided some arguments for why Pro's resolution would actually be detrimental! Specifically, if constituents agree to terms that are bad for the country, then this resolution attempts to ensure that these bad policies go into effect. Furthermore, Con believes that constituents are not unlikely to agree to bad goals. One only needs to look at the history of the United States to see such instances: slavery, Jim Crowe, segregation, women's suffrage, prohibition, etc.