Despite their individual leanings, one things seems to be evident among many politicians - their self-serving nature.
Examples of this abound. One would be the awarding of contracts to friends or to oneself. The doing of secret non-public deals. The 'Executive Order'. The left-leaning party screwing over their union comrades. Everyone throwing money at the corporates.
Yet, the voters have little choice. All choices are aiming at maximum popularity and can only distinguish themselves by trying to woo the maximum number of votes whilst still being able to keep their snouts in the trough - and not colliding with their own personal ideology too much.
They all work by adding to the legislative package, new taxes, new rebates and new secret laws.
Whether they started as Left, Right, whatever, they tend to find the median voter ideology and sit their politics around that point - and then add in their little bit of party rubbish or their own strange morals.
The thing is - if we are going to try to buy popularity this is as it will always be.
I myself make value judgements at election time. Do I vote for party A who will give me a tax cut or party B who may offer better job security?
Maybe some voters are happy with how things are - or the vote buying is not targeted at them? They could be ambivalent towards their choices.
What I propose is a new type of politics. The party would be placed in each area so as to maintain a basic ideology similar to that of the typical voter. So, for instance in the USA the party would be more right-leaning than in Australia. There is little point losing voters before you even start. Then, according to a basic list of rules, the party would attempt to repeal legislation and stop similar legislation from coming into existence.
Would voters be attracted to this? One could remove impediments to abortion and gay marriage, or remove the illegality of drugs. Remove the governments ability to do secret deals - making government more transparent. Remove handouts given to the rich or undeserving. Get rid of the secret laws and Acts.
I believe that the concerned voter is worried about the continual erosion of their freedoms. They could see this as a way of regaining their lost freedom and build a better, more honest world.
Here are some of the guiding rules which I have considered so far:
Don't touch: - constitution
Repeal: - laws which lead to 'victim-less' crimes (drug crimes) - laws which are hidden from the citizenry (terrorist legislation) - laws which unfairly grant wealth to a small population whilst penalising the rest (ie the state granting of monopolies, laws allowing pollution) - laws which reduce individual choice in the classic libertarianism sense (ie the state enforcing collecting fines for motorway operators where the only payment choice is Electronic tags, abortion, draft) - laws which history has passed-by and are now rarely enforced (ie sodomy) - laws which lead to the casual monitoring of the citizenry without court warrants (telephone and camera surveillance)
Advocate: - the transparent functioning of government - no more secret deals or closed tenders - the separation - and enforcement of - of members of the public service from private industry - the reduction of criminal activity using enforcement of current laws rather than the creation of new laws - A publicly accessible, searchable Internet site containing all active legislation available for perusal by any citizen at the Federal, State and Local Government level, along with pending amendments and repeals, and a committment that no party member will support any new legislation until such a resource exists at that government level. - less immigration and tougher entry policies, a longer time-frame to gain citizenship ie do the research up-front not once they have entered and become citizens