Standard of Compliance

Politicians are elected based on a set of goals or a plan in which they want to execute to improve the lives of the people the serve. All to many times we see these political figures make claims just to get the votes. I would propose a voting system not based on parties. but to allow all who qualify and would like the position to apply like any other employment. They would state there positions and the people would know what they were voting for. If this "employee" was not meeting the expectations they set forth. They would be replaced by the next candidate. The person with the next highest votes. I am sure this [process would take some time to work out the kinks. Please let me know your ideas.



  • Simple and honest like the best of ideas.

  • must be held accountable even after being ellected. somehow

  • This is the best idea I have been able to think of to allow for the most accountability.

  • Yes and line thyer pockets for personal gain

  • There is no clarity to your mechanism... how is it decided when someone is not doing their job? i think the same ends are met through my system of Real time Democracy/ Democracy without elections... which is up here as well

  • @austin we would have a system like the one your using. where the people would watch over their candidates. I have read over your system and I like parts of it. I think such a dramatic change is not going to be a clear cut swap. We would need to take pieces of many systems to find the perfect mix.

  • @Anonymous... great... I do like the above idea, but i think it is to vaguely expressed/

  • I do agree that the idea needs more work, but I like where it's going. Specifcally the 2 party system has failed the US population for long enough that the parties are already starting to fracture (e.g. - tea party)... Still, when not in an election, the two party system causes for nothing to get done as the party not in control is doing everything in their power to stop any legislation from passing at all... Overall, I think the elimination of the party system would do nothing but benefit the situation.

  • i think its great, its a bit vague but still good, it can work great.

  • I suggest let them all play poker, as it would save the US public throwing dice, so to speak. lol But on a serious note the idea looks great in principle but I feel there would be a admin problem and it could be fixed. Though if the idea was expanded and explained in much more detail to show how the system would work then i would want the idea sent to the top of the stack. Perhaps it world work elsewhere in the world where this horrible correct senate based form of governance is used to.

  • I object because i believe its the governance system that needs changing where the senate system is used. that system is to open to corruption. A parliamentary system is a far better method because candidates can not buy a seat.

  • Instead of having multiple parties, the finance minister, the environment minister, etc. would be applying for a job that all of which would be monitored by an auditor general who is ultimately working for us, the citizens. The auditor general then provides regular reports to the citizens.

  • I object because too much public control over issues leads to same stagnated system

  • Some of the time politicians change their plans for good reasons.

    Instead of removing a politician because they change their plans, remove a politician based on a regularly updated approval rate, to allow for the flexibility that people may be equally or more happy with the politician's new plans.

    I would suggest the time to potentially add/remove politicians is done weekly or monthly so they have the chance to change for the better if they do make bad plans during their time leading us.

  • I would adapt this idea to have the goals determined through voting and collaboration in a process similar to this forum, by the citizens of the world, not by the politicians. The determination of whether someone is doing their job would be determined by quantitative and qualitative research performed by a 3rd party and could be debated by opposition parties (if they were to exist). Therefore the goals would need to be stated in such a way as to be easily measured and enforced. The turnover would cause problems of inefficiency if the leadership position were to change hands every measurement period that yielded negative popularity figures. There should be regular polls taken and the approval rating would show the person in position whether they need to correct their course of action. Maybe 3 or 4 negative popularity periods would warrant a vote for office. Of course we should expect these people in office to be able to defend their actions and more importantly, lead and inspire us.

  • Unless raise to leed from birth; every world leader should be under a veto. For instance; the United States does not consult with its' congress; no acountability. It is no longer a Repulic, but Empire. All commonwealth country's governments can be deemed resolved by the Queen. Even though the Queen has no true power in parliment; she can resovle parliment so electings result and the people decide on whether a Priminister stays in power or not. The US government influences the world in its decession making. To much power.

  • You write so hnoestly about this. Thanks for sharing!

Similar Ideas: