From: B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: -=> NO CONTRACT -- NO VOTE <=-  (Bill of Rights)
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:36:00 GMT

{ ref: talk.politics.theory, Re: -=> NO CONTRACT -- NO VOTE <=-  }

I've proposed:

`Candidacy Contracts' -- which constrain an officeholder after
election to vote for, or at least not impede, the passage of new
laws concerning matters of personal interest to a voter, (or voting
block). And ....

Lee Story on 7-21 (lee@wang.com) responded:
|

|... As long as we have a representative government, I would much
|rather try to elect a man with whose principles I generally agree,
|and who can think for himself, than one who swears under penalty
|of recall to support some particular cause which I advocate, but
|who might otherwise be as beneficent as unca' Adolf.

Yes, no doubt there's a small portion of the populace who are so weak
minded that they would willingly enter into a deal with any old devil.
Not too different than what happens now to many of the single issue
voters who aren't going to be given the time of day after the election
anyway -- unless of course that single issue is power or money.

It's weird to think that "trust me" is the prevailing attitude for our
political representatives, yet =contractual-obligation= is the
practice of everyday business. It's even more interesting when we
consider that most folks would say it's just plain stupid to hand over
up-to-half of our income (in taxes) to a broker (or elected official)
-- to risk (or spend) as they see fit.

|   ... there's no reason that legal contractual constraints can't be placed
|   on a candidate in return for the support of a particular voting block.
|   Call it the "voters-veto".....

|No.  I don't want my rep to be paralyzed by the need to make, and then
|slavishly follow up on, promises to a hundred interest-groups....

Hey, no argument -- but that's the way it is now, only those interest-
groups are called contributors, pacs, and vested interests. I'm more
concerned about candidates actually following through on their empty
rhetoric, and knowing that they really mean what they say.

|   = Prototype for a "Candidacy Contract." =
|
|   In exchange for the support of those involved, and under legal
|   agreement, failure to comply with which shall result in resignation
|   from office, the candidate agrees to sign (or at least not impede)
|   legislation for...

[long list of well meaning issues and interest groups, all of which in
 no way could anyone actively support]

|This is pretty funny.  I actually thought you were serious until I
|realized that the "contract" was not in terms of "will promote and
|vote for House Bill XXX", which at least would arguably have _some_
|value.

"Funny" is to realize that in fact no representative in a huge
governmental system can begin to act in favor of all of their
constituency -- so many get left-out. On the left, those who are
left out are the `middle class' in favor of those minorities who have
a priority-of-need, (ala Rawls). On the right, those who are ignored
are the ones who are poor and undeserving competitors, (ala last
century's social darwinism).

A contract would only makes it clear what a candidate actually is
committed to doing, rather than justy paying lip-service to.

The root problem is the size of any system which requires representation.
But giving up on "down-sizing" as a solution, (since unbridled expansion
is the goal of the parties), the problem for the disenfranchised is how
to become part of the process -- without spending onerous amounts of
time and money.

One answer, well proved in daily transactions, is the legal contract.
Because if your candidate isn't willing to enter into contract with
you in support of American ideals, then they're already beholden to
some other.

Instead of first amendment advocacy, how about a contract to uphold
the Bill of Rights? Such as:

   = Prototype for a "Candidacy Contract." =

   In exchange for the vote of those concerned, and under legal
   agreement, failure to comply with which shall require resig-
   nation from office, the candidate agrees not to sign any new
   legislation counter to any of the 1st 10 Amendments of the
   United States Constitution.

Not that I wouldn't also like to see additional contracts between
voters and candidates concerning whether they'll accept pay-raises,
raise taxes, vote for spending increases, establish computer 
bulletin boards or internet accounts to make available information 
about their activities, etc. etc.

As in daily business, a contract is mostly a matter of being clear
about intended actions -- which is likely a truely radical concept
for many politicians -- even if they do have law degrees.

|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
|              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
|------------------------------------------------------------------------

 /                     |                                               \
(  Stephen D. Tice  -- S --  Sometimes God reminds us who's still Boss. )
 \                     |                                               /
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.legal