Before the election, the general public sets up petitions on political issues and a few dozen of the most popular (or controversial) policies are placed on the ballot. For each policy you can specify that you are in favour, against or indifferent.

When politician you voted for votes against the position stated on your ballot, your vote is then cancelled. If he no longer has enough votes to count as a majority, his position goes up for election.

This would make it much harder for politicians to break their promises. It would also motivate them to state their policies rather than being vague about them, as they would want to attract as many voters who agreed with them as possible, while voters who disagreed would not help them much. It would limit horse trading. Lastly, it would provide a lot of information to government about what their electorate wanted.
-- Bad Jim, Dec 05 2009

Ok this i can go with. I still feel like we should vote for the brains not just the platform.
-- WcW, Dec 06 2009


Who decides how to divy up or categorize the policies? Or are they standardized? Who decides a policy has been breached?
-- phoenix, Dec 06 2009


I cite the problem of people voting for contradictory things (such as low taxes *and* increased public services) in separate public ballots. [-] The direct voting in California concerning electricity generation is an example of this, causing considerable problems.

This is a problem with most systems of direct voting, except <shameless plug> my HB Votémon Direct Democracy idea of course </shameless plug>!
-- Aristotle, Dec 06 2009


//Who decides how to divy up or categorize the policies?//

Public petitions. Those with the most names get put on the ballot.

//Who decides a policy has been breached?//

A judge in the Supreme Court. This does, of course, require a legalese version to be drawn up, which may be a sticking point.

//the problem of people voting for contradictory things//

In direct democracy this problem occurs because the state is legally obliged to implement contradictory policies. But with my system, as with representative democracy, the elected official must choose who he will offend. The difference is he loses their support right there, not in several years time when they've probably forgotten.

Out of fairness, the other candidates will have their vote tallies reduced as if they had voted on the bills in the least unpopular way. So a representative will still be able to vote on topics like abortion without automatically losing his seat.
-- Bad Jim, Dec 06 2009



random, halfbakery