From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: -=> NO CONTRACT -- NO VOTE <=-  (Political Chess)
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:17:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.

In article <01GMLW6GV3OG0013JX@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (Stephen Tice) writes:

   So Lee, would you care to include a clause in the "candidacy contract"
   that constrains the officeholder after election to vote for, or at 
   least not impede, population moderation laws? 

Of course not.  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.  That was
Ezra Pound's---self-admitted---mistake in favoring the Fascists.
Incidentally, I've been rereading Pound and Williams, and the extent
to which these "kooky" nonprofessionals predicted, or at least
envisioned, today's government debt crisis is quite remarkable.

   I think the "on-default-must-resign" criteria is generally useful, but
   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.  That would
absolutely guarantee that any fairly honest woman (assuming, as I think is
reasonable, that any honest woman changes her opinion at least once a term
about at least half a dozen of the groups you list, to say nothing of
individual issues) would be recalled.

   = 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:

	   o womens'equality                (for the fem vote)
	   o equal opportunity              (for the racial minorities vote)
	   o civil liberty                  (for the personal freedom vote)
	   o fiscal frugality               (for the workers vote)
	   o environmental conservancy      (for the green vote)
	   o adequate universal healthcare  (for the aged and infirm vote)
	   o ongoing educational access     (for the underclass vote)
	   o physical access                (for the handicapable vote)
	   o enterprise zones .... etc., etc.

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.

   Whaddya think? Can the law be a tool to force substance on rhetoric?

Yes, but it's been most useful where it's done exactly the opposite
(vid. the First Amendment).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:2987 misc.legal:14714 alt.censorship:6188