Should politicians be allowed to sign pledges of what they would do if/when elected?

[Blackjack200]

This is related to Techs's Grover Norquist thread. But I wanted to start a broader discussion, thus a new thread.

If a politician signs a pledge to behave a certain way, I would think that would be a potential source for a conflict of interest, with little if any benefit to society. What if, for the circumstances the country is in, a tax rate increase is the best policy? Now the elected official must either make a decision that is not optimal for the country (or his consituents) or break a pledge that he signed.

So why should we allow candidates to tie their own hands before even being elected? The very action of signing such a pledge compromises their integrity.

Elected officials should be free to govern in the way that makes the most sense. If they are elected on a platform of opposing tax increases, and then they raise taxes, it will be up to them to defend their decision during their next campaign.

 

[shortylickens]

Oh look, its this topic again!




No.

 

[dullard]

There shouldn't be a pledge. But there should be a checkbox list of issues and how they stand assuming no new information comes along. How would they LIKE to handle a problem if it might occur? That way we can compare them without ads without spin and without dodging debate questions.

 

[NoStateofMind]

This is related to Techs's Grover Norquist thread. But I wanted to start a broader discussion, thus a new thread.

If a politician signs a pledge to behave a certain way, I would think that would be a potential source for a conflict of interest, with little if any benefit to society. What if, for the circumstances the country is in, a tax rate increase is the best policy? Now the elected official must either make a decision that is not optimal for the country (or his consituents) or break a pledge that he signed.

So why should we allow candidates to tie their own hands before even being elected? The very action of signing such a pledge compromises their integrity.

Elected officials should be free to govern in the way that makes the most sense. If they are elected on a platform of opposing tax increases, and then they raise taxes, it will be up to them to defend their decision during their next campaign.

WTF are you talking about? They pledge to uphold the Constitution and that doesn't stop them shitting all over it so WTF is another fucking peice of paper? Some form of platitude?

 

[Blackjack200]

There shouldn't be a pledge. But there should be a checkbox list of issues and how they stand assuming no new information comes along. How would they LIKE to handle a problem if it might occur? That way we can compare them without ads without spin and without dodging debate questions.

I don't know, I suppose it wouldn't hurt, but I felt like I knew where Obama and Romney stood on a number of issues.

Obama:

- Raise taxes on wealthy Americans (> 250k)
- Continue with Obamacare
- No Iranian intervention
- Spending cuts/deficit reduction is needed
- Support Roe v. Wade (implications for SCOTUS nomination)

Romney (Even after his move toward the center after the primaries):

- No tax increases (additional revenue through the closure of unspecified loopholes)
- Overturn Obamacare
- No Iranian intervention
- Spending cuts/deficit reduction is needed
- Oppose Roe v. Wade

I think they dodge debate questions because they don't want to give their opponents a sound bite, not because they don't want people to know where they stand on the issues. It's one of the reasons I'm not a huge fan of the debates. I think they have their place, but I don't think they're all that useful.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Sure. Making promises is what politicians do best.

I don't consider the tax pledge remotely wise, but it's our fault for electing people who sign said pledges. In fact, it's much better that they sign on before they're elected, so at least we know what we're doing to ourselves.

 

[DaveSimmons]

> The very action of signing such a pledge compromises their integrity.

How? It's not a legally binding contract. As long as it isn't done in secret, it's just like a campaign promise.

Nothing is stopping anyone who signed it from saying "my viewpoint has evolved, I no longer will follow this pledge."

 

[techs]

Yes, they should be allowed to.
No, people shouldn't vote for them if the pledge violates their oath of office.

 

[Incorruptible]

There already is a `pledge` its called the Constitution

 

[Blackjack200]

Sure. Making promises is what politicians do best.

I don't consider the tax pledge remotely wise, but it's our fault for electing people who sign said pledges. In fact, it's much better that they sign on before they're elected, so at least we know what we're doing to ourselves.

I don't think that's a good enough control in this case. Many voters will think to themselves "I don't want any new taxes, therefore this is a good pledge".

We don't allow elected officials (or candidates) to take bribes. The same argument could be made that the bribes should be legal, and it would be up to the electorate to vote out politicians that take them.

 

[Ausm]

WTF are you talking about? They pledge to uphold the Constitution and that doesn't stop them shitting all over it so WTF is another fucking peice of paper? Some form of platitude?

I think he is referring to the Repugs who genuflect to Grover Norquist.

 

[dullard]

I don't know, I suppose it wouldn't hurt, but I felt like I knew where Obama and Romney stood on a number of issues.

Obama:

- Raise taxes on wealthy Americans (> 250k)
- Continue with Obamacare
- No Iranian intervention
- Spending cuts/deficit reduction is needed
- Support Roe v. Wade (implications for SCOTUS nomination)

Romney (Even after his move toward the center after the primaries):

- No tax increases (additional revenue through the closure of unspecified loopholes)
- Overturn Obamacare
- No Iranian intervention
- Spending cuts/deficit reduction is needed
- Oppose Roe v. Wade

I think they dodge debate questions because they don't want to give their opponents a sound bite, not because they don't want people to know where they stand on the issues. It's one of the reasons I'm not a huge fan of the debates. I think they have their place, but I don't think they're all that useful.

If you pay some attention, you can usually get that info from presidential candidates. But local ones are nearly impossible. Many local elections are based on faith and not on ANY data.

 

[nageov3t]

they should be "allowed" to do whatever they want as long as it's legal.

but I wouldn't vote for a politician so eager to tie their own hands like that.

 

[wuliheron]

Politicians lying and promising the world is par for the course. Just try and stop them.