Should parties be punished for not completing their manifesto in their term?

[Stronk Serb]

I mean, we all know politicians lie, but if legislation is to be passed that the elected party has to complete a certain percent of it's manifesto, or face punishment by not being able to candidate for any other elections in the next turn, wouldn't it make those liars and thieves do something which they promised? Here, the ruling party, the "progressives" would be banned from the next parliamentary and presidential elections.

[Vlerchan]

If a party doesn't live up to your expectations then you are free to punish it by voting for a different party in the next election.

I've no idea why you think there needs to be a mechanism in place to punish parties beyond that.

[Gamma Male]

It's kinda a good idea, but it's never gonna happen.

If a party doesn't live up to your expectations then you are free to punish it by voting for a different party in the next election.

I've no idea why you think there needs to be a mechanism in place to punish parties beyond that.

And if all parties lie?

[Vlerchan]

And if all parties lie?
I've never heard of a case where all parties have been in power at the same time.

[Camazotz]

Unfortunately, that's unrealistic. It'd be impossible to punish a political party for not living up to their goals because everyone likes to think fulfilling goals is easy and blame the person/party in power for not meeting expectations.

On top of that, punishing bipartisan countries (like the United States) would benefit no one. I like the idea behind it, but it would definitely be impractical here. It might work in countries with multi-party systems, but there'd have to be heavy self-regulation of what goals each party would want to accomplish; they'd pretty much have to focus solely on a single issue.

[Vlerchan]

A proper response:

It seems ignorant of the idea that sometimes parties have a hard time getting their initiatives through whilst in power: I'll use the US as an example: in the US the Democrats currently hold the presidency, but as a result of a Republican house of congress they are having a difficult time committing to their promises and getting some 'good' done. Considering such it seems obviously wrong to punish the Democrats on the basis that they haven't stayed true to their word. In countries where a coalition government is the typical, you'd have junior-partners being hung after their term was up on the basis of being junior partners.

It seems ignorant of the idea that such proceedings would take time: In such a case that a party was being accused of not fulfilling its promises there would need to be some sort of inquiry (do they have a genuine excuse for such? etc.): inquiries take time (let's forget money). It doesn't seem plausible that a full inquire might be conducted in the usually short space of time between a party leaving power and elections taking place: in most cases I would imagine it would be rushed and as such highly susceptible to error.

As said before, a mechanism already exists (effectively): If there's enough public ire in that we are actually calling for this inquire, then there would seem to be an obvious lack of need for such an inquire to take place in the first place: I know in Ireland that when a party does bad in government it doesn't do well in the next election. It just seems a wholly unnecessary waste of taxpayers money to preform inquiries once this is considered.

[HUSTLEMAN]

You cannot do this. In all the governments of the world and the factions within those gov'ts it is imposzible for a single faction to accomplish their electoral manifesto by the beginning of the election cycle. There is just too much opposition from other factions and sometimes within the faction itself.For example, here in the US President Obama and fellow Democrats wanted to shutdown Guantanimo Bay early in his administration. That did not work out at all. Republicans in both sectors of Congress and some of the Democrats hated the fact that by closing Guantanimo Bay you would be sending away these "suspected terrorists" to prisions all over the country and increase the chance of them doing harm to Americans. Now based on your system b/c he and his party couldn't get passed the resolution to close Gitmo you are punishing them on top of the fact that they mighted get kicked out of office by the next election cycle. Are you serious? No, if that was your party of choice how would you feel, losing the power to elect your own canidate for the Presidency because of a single failure. How would you feel? That's why it will never work in any government. That's humiliation for your faction not only a national scale but on the world stage.

[Harry Smith]

To be honest here the politicians end up punishing themselves, look at the liberal Democrats after they raised tuiton fees despite their manifesto pledge

KUDjRZ30SNo