[Political Idea]: Politicians being Owned by the People

[Surfd]

I remember reading a Sci Fi novel that had an interesting approach to Politics and makeing sure that Politicians did the best they could for their Country.

Losely, it went something like this:
When you became a politician, the goverment Audited everything you owned, and I mean EVERYTHING. It was assigned a cash value, which was then recorded in the books, and all your worldly possessions became property of the Government (most personal effects type things would go into storage).

You then served your term. During your term, the goverment covered all your living expenses, travel expenses and alloted you a spending allowance for personal Entertainment and the like. They also payed you an annual salary that was added to your initial cash value assessed when you first entered office.

At the end of your term, if the area you were responsable for governing / representing as a politician was better off then when you started there, you were payed back all of your initial Worth, + your salary, + a modifier based on the improvement you achieved during your term in office.

Likewise, if at the end of your term, the area you were responsable for governing / representing was WORSE off, you were fined an amount based on how much worse off the place was.

For example, If you were elected mayor of a town, that town OWNED you. Everything you owned became an asset of the town. If you served 10 years as mayor, and the town flourished, when you stepped down, you would get the proverbial "golden parachuite" and could retire comfortably for the rest of your life.

However, if you managed to fuck the town up due to mismanagement, when you retired, EVERYTHING YOU OWNED might be confiscated by the town as a sort of settlement to cover the cost of repairing the damage you had done.

If the town was only slightly worse off, you might end up retiring with your intial net worth + some of your salary. If the town was really badly mismanaged, you could retire a penniless beggar.

The only catch I remember from the books (it has been a long time) was that Political office was generally not something a lot of people voluntarily wanted to do, given the nature of the risks involved, so many of the people given Political office were usually "forcefully" appointed to the post, and once there you were stuck for the full term. Generally, whoever ended up drawing the short stick was someone qualified for it tho, not just some random schmuck off the street. So one of the dangers of being a Princeton Politics grad or something similar was that you could end up forcefully elected to office for 5 years.

If Modern Politicians had that kind of Incentive hanging over their heads to stop all the bullshit and actually serve the people / properly manage the places they represent, do you think things would be a lot better then they are now?

[Deleted]

That is a great idea. For encouraging the Mitt Romneys to enter politics for the sake of asset stripping the country.

[Surfd]

That is a great idea. For encouraging the Mitt Romneys to enter politics for the sake of asset stripping the country.

Going to assume you didnt actually read what i posted. Asset stripping the country would leave the country worse off then it was when he entered office. Therefore he would retire penniless.

[Calzaeth]

I demand the name of the book(s). I need something in my reading queue for when I'm done with the most recent book from the dude in my sig (CHECK HIM OUT!).

[Aeluron Lightsong]

They shouldn't be owned by anyone. They should be held accountable, that's about it.

[obdigore]

Going to assume you didnt actually read what i posted. Asset stripping the country would leave the country worse off then it was when he entered office. Therefore he would retire penniless.

Well that is kind of the problem. Who makes the decision of better/worse. For instance if/when a city goes bankrupt in certain parts of the US, they bring in an 'emergency manager'. Some of them work to fix problems. Other sell revenue generating property for spending cash, make it look like the city is no longer bankrupt, and say 'I did my job', ignoring the fact that they traded steady income money for a quick boost of cash.

[Felya]

The results of a governing body are not always felt during their candidacy. The success of a politician is usually based on perspective. There are fluctuating and unpredictable turns in things like agriculture and international affairs, that have nothing to do with the governing body, but have an impact on their term.

The theory is extremely narrow sighted. Probably some ill conceived plot device. Was the ending some attempt at irony of a successful campaign, resulting in tragedy later?

[Deleted]

Going to assume you didnt actually read what i posted. Asset stripping the country would leave the country worse off then it was when he entered office. Therefore he would retire penniless.

And you've proven that you didn't actually think any of this through. The point of me bringing up asset stripping is that it is an example of something that looks good on paper in the short term, but is actually diastrous in the long term. So all a politician needed to do is not stand for re-election and voila, set for life while the country burns.

- - - Updated - - -

The results of a governing body are not always felt during their candidacy. The success of a politician is usually based on perspective. There are fluctuating and unpredictable turns in things like agriculture and international affairs, that have nothing to do with the governing body, but have an impact on their term.

The theory is extremely narrow sighted. Probably some ill conceived plot device. Was the ending some attempt at irony of a successful campaign, resulting in tragedy later?

Probably just a typical case of someone clueless thinking he has magical solutions to intractable problems.

[Kaleredar]

It's difficult to assess whether a place is "better off" or "worse off" so easily. Who measures that? How? The voters? What if its better for one part of the community, but worse for a much smaller part? What if the leader did something their community liked, but some other community might dislike? And maybe that decision affects a neighboring community heavily?

I'm all for having politicians be extremely accountable, but... need a more grounded way to do it.

[Surfd]

They shouldn't be owned by anyone. They should be held accountable, that's about it.

Well, that was sort of the idea. Like I said, It has been a very long time since I read the book, but the general idea was that the Accountability came in the form of their Payment for the job being directly tied to how well they managed the area they were representing / governing. If they did a good job, they got a bonus on top of what they earned as their salary. If they did a bad job, they could be docked their entire earned salary, up to and including their initial net worth to cover the damages they had incured.

And from what i remember, it wasnt just "lol, your city got hit with a devistating hurricane in the last month of your Term, you get fucked" kind of system. There were a lot of factors that were checked to determine exactly what kind of positive / negative impact someone had during their term and if a negative end result was directly their fault or not.

[Milchshake]

Duh!
Politicians are already owned by the people. They happen to be owned by the very rich people.

[Prokne]

I think a big problem with the premise is that no politician has enough control over anything for it to be fair for them to be that financially responsible for it. Most of what happens in a term comes down to luck (being at the right place at the right time) or the actions of someone else.

Besides not giving politicians with short service times a lifelong pension and healthcare (should be similar to the military, 20 years or more and you get retirement otherwise get a 401k, should probably be 30 though because being a politician is much easier than being in the military), the only thing I think is necessary to stop politicians from insider careers is to force them into mandatory non-compete agreements where they cant work in the area they were involved in in politics for several years after they leave office.

[Orcbert]

This would be a great tool to get anyone with no money to want to be the mayor.