(He also has a long history of not paying, but that’s not relevant for the legal difference)
You don’t happen to know if other have successfully argued on court that since they had a history of not paying, it is understood by everyone that they were not genuine and would not pay?
Australian politicians have been repeatedly making popular promises around election time, then quietly not doing anything about them after the election.
Candidates who are unlikely to be elected have also been making near impossible promises. They know that the promises don’t need to be realistic because they won’t be elected, but loft promises will still bring them more votes and more media time.
There should be some form of penalty for not completing an election promise once in power, and any party already in power should only be promising things they’re already working on.
So the non encumbant party/candidate can promise to work on ALL problems in a country, but the encumbants are legally prevented from promising to do so, even if they genuinely and legitimately plan on doing so, and simply can’t start working on ALL of them at once, and therefore had to limit their current work ?
And wouldn’t this just encourage encumbants to start half baked unmotivated work on every issue imaginable, so they can use those issues when campaigning, instead of focsuing their effort on a few important issues, and actually doing something effective to fix those, because that would actually severely limit their campaign talking points.
In your system, governing effectively and efficiently becomes detrimental to a parties ability to campaign.
No, it’s not remotely shifting the goal posts. You explicitly said encumbants shouldn’t be allowed to campaign on fixing issues if they’re not already working to fix those issues.
What I wrote is a direct and obvious consequence of such a law/policy, the goal posts haven’t moved a fucking mm.
And sure, some sort of promise or prevention for that would be great, but it’s effectively impossible to codify it into law in a way that isn’t easily exploitable, circumventable or just has worse consequences than the thing it prevents.
The difference is that when someone campaigns on UBI, they are talking about laws that they want to pass, through the entire legislative process. Please also see my edit to my first comment that I wrote at the same time you were asking this question.
So then what’s (legally) the difference between a candidate promising UBI and what Trump did ?
Trump is already in power and could give the money at any time. He is deliberately tying it to voting.
(He also has a long history of not paying, but that’s not relevant for the legal difference)
You don’t happen to know if other have successfully argued on court that since they had a history of not paying, it is understood by everyone that they were not genuine and would not pay?
So then why isn’t EVERY campaign promise by the encumbant president/party problematic in the same way ?
In my opinion️, they should be.
Australian politicians have been repeatedly making popular promises around election time, then quietly not doing anything about them after the election.
Candidates who are unlikely to be elected have also been making near impossible promises. They know that the promises don’t need to be realistic because they won’t be elected, but loft promises will still bring them more votes and more media time.
There should be some form of penalty for not completing an election promise once in power, and any party already in power should only be promising things they’re already working on.
So the non encumbant party/candidate can promise to work on ALL problems in a country, but the encumbants are legally prevented from promising to do so, even if they genuinely and legitimately plan on doing so, and simply can’t start working on ALL of them at once, and therefore had to limit their current work ?
And wouldn’t this just encourage encumbants to start half baked unmotivated work on every issue imaginable, so they can use those issues when campaigning, instead of focsuing their effort on a few important issues, and actually doing something effective to fix those, because that would actually severely limit their campaign talking points.
In your system, governing effectively and efficiently becomes detrimental to a parties ability to campaign.
That’s shifting the goal posts a bit.
Some form of prevention for knowingly making false election promises is a good start.
No, it’s not remotely shifting the goal posts. You explicitly said encumbants shouldn’t be allowed to campaign on fixing issues if they’re not already working to fix those issues.
What I wrote is a direct and obvious consequence of such a law/policy, the goal posts haven’t moved a fucking mm.
And sure, some sort of promise or prevention for that would be great, but it’s effectively impossible to codify it into law in a way that isn’t easily exploitable, circumventable or just has worse consequences than the thing it prevents.
The difference is that when someone campaigns on UBI, they are talking about laws that they want to pass, through the entire legislative process. Please also see my edit to my first comment that I wrote at the same time you were asking this question.