Why can't politicians be subjected to performance reviews?

[SSSnail]

I have an idea that can fix our country, I'll call it "performance review". With this "performance review", their actions are judged and scored based on how they perform. You know, it's this wonderful concept where if you can't perform the jobs you're set out to do, you're canned. Almost like how much of the world works, right?

So, before we vote them into office, each candidate should set their own goals and achievement matrix. Throughout their terms (1/4, 1/2, 3/4 term), we'll have performance reviews based on objectives set by the candidates themselves. If they don't meet the objectives, then out the door they go and a secondary candidate is then take over the job until next election cycle. If the guy does a good job, well, we reelect him.

Who's with me?

 

[PhlashFoto]

Isn't that the whole point of them running for reelection?

 

[frostedflakes]

They aren't every couple years when they're up for re-election?

 

[SSSnail]

Well, the election system is broken, usually they're there for the whole term while doing nothing. So, I think we can shorten their terms even more. This will also cut down on campaign over promises (see - lies), and nondelivery.

You have to look no further than San Francisco's board of stupivisors. These idiots don't do anything, get elected by district by a few thousands (for city wide) and then spend their times wondering about stupid shits that nobody cares about. The Daily Show just roasted one of them, he goes by the name of eric mar (the infamous no McD happy meal douchebag).

 

[Mike Gayner]

As above, this already exists. It's called an election.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Performance is subjective.

Who writes the 'performance review'?

Also, see elections.

 

[JMapleton]

Who's going to determine what is and isn't considered a "success"?

More people than ever own homes under Bush. Was that considered a "success"? No because he used the Fed to pump money into the economy, thus creating the housing boom.....and then bust, which left people worse off than they were in the first place.

We don't need "politicians" to fix our economy. Or our society. Or our government. We need the public to this do by changing their lifestyle habits and prominent citizens working to motivate people to make changes through non profit organizations and even corporations (corps can be used for positive changes as well, they're not all negative as left wingers would portray them as).

Politicians should serve the purpose our founding fathers did. To secure our freedoms and prevent tyranny by abusive policymakers. A politicians jobs is NOT to create more and more laws and "programs" to "fix" our country.

Obama, Bush, Clinton, no Senator or Congressman can "fix" our country, we have to do that. They should just be giving us the freedom to assist us in doing that.

 

[SSSnail]

OK, let's start small, with your local government. What are the elected officials doing? So people elect them to office just so they can sit there, do nothing and call it "enabling freedom"? Give me a break. Nobody hires me to enable other people to do things, I have to produce, whatever your position is, you have to produce SOMETHING. That is your objective.

Take the roads for instance, someone is suppose to be fixing the roads around here, yet if you ask any San Franciscan when's the last time any road was paved, the odds are not many remembers. Yet, every year, these "politicians" think of new fees (because it's illegal to tax) to create "revenues" to fix the roads. That's just one small example.

Elections??? HAHAHAHA... seriously, you people need to wake the hell up. You check a box for a name you don't even know, whose issues you don't even care for or understand (that's if you even vote). So after you elect someone, and they don't perform, they get a free ride until the next election? You can't be serious. Try doing that at your job. "Eh, I don't feel like doing anything, why don't you come back in few years and fire me then". Right!

 

[Kadarin]

The problem isn't that politicians aren't up for performance review, but that we the voting public REALLY SUCK as managers for these bozos.

 

[frostedflakes]

OK, let's start small, with your local government. What are the elected officials doing? So people elect them to office just so they can sit there, do nothing and call it "enabling freedom"? Give me a break. Nobody hires me to enable other people to do things, I have to produce, whatever your position is, you have to produce SOMETHING. That is your objective.

Take the roads for instance, someone is suppose to be fixing the roads around here, yet if you ask any San Franciscan when's the last time any road was paved, the odds are not many remembers. Yet, every year, these "politicians" think of new fees (because it's illegal to tax) to create "revenues" to fix the roads. That's just one small example.

Elections??? HAHAHAHA... seriously, you people need to wake the hell up. You check a box for a name you don't even know, whose issues you don't even care for or understand (that's if you even vote). So after you elect someone, and they don't perform, they get a free ride until the next election? You can't be serious. Try doing that at your job. "Eh, I don't feel like doing anything, why don't you come back in few years and fire me then". Right!

If you don't like the way things are run, you're more than welcome to run for a local office.

I think what would be far more beneficial is to reduce barriers to entry that favor incumbents and prevent new people that might actually offer some real change from getting into office. Get rid of the de facto two party system and make it so that third parties have a fighting chance (using preferential voting or something like that, there are a ton of potential solutions out there). Reform campaign finance so that less well off candidates without huge fortunes to throw at campaigning can have a fair shot at office. etc.

 

[Mike Gayner]

The alternative is to kick politicians out of service whenver you're dissatisfied with them - I don't think you're fully appreciating why this would be such a big deal. Firstly, no politician would ever try anything remotely risky - you think four year terms are restrictive, try being up against a whimsical public daily.

Secondly, this would force elections ALL THE TIME, and would be extremely costly and a logistical nightmare. This wouldn't result in better democracy - just bigger bureaucracy.

 

[techs]

Dumb idea. It's not the politicians that are broken, it's the voters.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

OK, let's start small, with your local government. What are the elected officials doing? So people elect them to office just so they can sit there, do nothing and call it "enabling freedom"? Give me a break. Nobody hires me to enable other people to do things, I have to produce, whatever your position is, you have to produce SOMETHING. That is your objective.

Take the roads for instance, someone is suppose to be fixing the roads around here, yet if you ask any San Franciscan when's the last time any road was paved, the odds are not many remembers. Yet, every year, these "politicians" think of new fees (because it's illegal to tax) to create "revenues" to fix the roads. That's just one small example.

Elections??? HAHAHAHA... seriously, you people need to wake the hell up. You check a box for a name you don't even know, whose issues you don't even care for or understand (that's if you even vote). So after you elect someone, and they don't perform, they get a free ride until the next election? You can't be serious. Try doing that at your job. "Eh, I don't feel like doing anything, why don't you come back in few years and fire me then". Right!

Your second paragraph gave a problem, but I don't see where or how a performance review fits into that. What does it actually do?

 

[SSSnail]

Your second paragraph gave a problem, but I don't see where or how a performance review fits into that. What does it actually do?

Isn't it somebody's job to fix or maintain the city? Somebody that was elected to do the job? Where are our tax money going? Isn't someone else suppose to take care of that too? Etc...

 

[ShawnD1]

Isn't that the whole point of them running for reelection?

Now you know how employers feel. They want a candidate who fits 1 basic requirement --> is not a retard. All of the applicants for that job happen to be retards and you need to hire one of them.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Isn't it somebody's job to fix or maintain the city? Somebody that was elected to do the job? Where are our tax money going? Isn't someone else suppose to take care of that too? Etc...

That post does not explain how this "performance review" idea is supposed to be implemented.

 

[krunchykrome]

Isn't that the whole point of them running for reelection?

this

 

[Kommander_Kink]

Isn't that the whole point of them running for reelection?

Yeah but idiots more stupid than them keep voting them into power again, for example the neo-cons, they keep electing idiots into power, the latest darling being GW Bush.

 

[boomhower]

re-election?

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

This seems P&N more than OT.

Anyways, instead of performance reviews, politicians should not be taking the large amounts of money that they are for their duties as a politician. They should serve because they want to serve and should not need to be paid 6 digits.

 

[Bateluer]

Dumb idea. It's not the politicians that are broken, it's the voters.

Yes, they screwed up horribly at the end of 2008. Did a little better in the mid term 2010 elections, but not quite enough. Big improvement though.

 

[Kaido]

I lol'd at the title, that's such a great idea

 

[OutHouse]

Well, the election system is broken, usually they're there for the whole term while doing nothing. So, I think we can shorten their terms even more. This will also cut down on campaign over promises (see - lies), and nondelivery.

You have to look no further than San Francisco's board of stupivisors. These idiots don't do anything, get elected by district by a few thousands (for city wide) and then spend their times wondering about stupid shits that nobody cares about. The Daily Show just roasted one of them, he goes by the name of eric mar (the infamous no McD happy meal douchebag).

the election system is not broken. the the politics in washington that is broken.

 

[DesiPower]

who will make that policy?

 

[Bateluer]

who will make that policy?

I humbly accept this responsibility.