Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm
Transcript.Gov parallel to Data.Gov. What have our leaders been saying?
Data.Gov shows is an invaluable tool detailing laws, regulations, studies and spending. But, when we as voters are deliberating whether to reward our leaders with another term or to throw the rascals out, we need to know what they promised and how these promises were either fulfilled, forgotten or “fine tuned” over time.

A comprehensive clearinghouse of transcripts of campaign pledges, floor speeches, press conferences, interviews, depositions and hearings, parallel to Data.Gov, would allow us to quickly and easily check the integrity of our public servants.

With the press pathologically preoccupied with late-breaking news and devoting astonishingly scant resources to in-depth, historical analysis, such a resource could help give us an empirical perspective on how our politicians are doing. A comprehensive analysis could point out trends and conflicts in the data which might be obscured in the cacophony of scattered snippets currently available.

Perhaps a Wikipedia type web site could be setup to consolidate this information for at least the most high-profile actors in the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The peer review and fact checking available on a user-editable site would ensure complete and factual content. It could be indexed and searchable by person, date, venue and keyword to make it as accessible as possible.

Weaseling political opportunists would probably prefer to keep us focused on what they said today hoping that memories of previous promises would soon fade. Could we trust those currently in power to disseminate the data in a timely manner or would they simply hold hearings, conduct studies and establish blue ribbon panels which would drag on until they were out of office?

Would it be better to have an organization, independent of government, carry out the research and post the findings before the next election cycle? If we could find a few hundred dedicated archivists to each research and document one Executive, Senate or House bigwig, we could have an effective system online in a few weeks. I'll take Evergreen.

Let's have a good look at the whole, historical picture before we send the next bunch to Washington.

BrianP
Austin, TX USA

Why Is This Idea Important?

We need to break the cycle of politicians saying whatever is expedient to get elected and then disregarding their pledges once in office. By having an efficient tool to compare promises to results, we can separate the statesmen from the rascals.
Comments
bluemarinaponds 8 months ago
I like the idea of keeping track of campaign promises but with the rate at which things change - how can anyone know what the correct actions are - or even what the important issues are.
Sherry Austin MN
denver 8 months ago
Hand over to the Library of Congress not an independent organization. Political views could be slanted, either way, there.
apugh96 8 months ago
These politicians make promises when they have little knowledge of how to do the job. I would rather they say they'll try than to promise something they can't deliver.
Democracy:
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is comunistic-negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.
A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."
A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.

Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:
an executive and
a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize
certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."
A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.
Difference between Democracy and Republic, in brief:
Democracy:
a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences

Republic
a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.
b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.

The difference between Republic and Righteous Republic is that in the Republic the Government rules according to the law set up by men, in the Righteous Republic the law is the Law of God. Only in the Righteous Republic it can truly be said "One nation under God" for it is governed under commandments of the only One True God and there is no pluralism of religions.
Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.
Mobocracy: 1. Political control by a mob. 2. The mass of common people as the source of political control.
Money Hayabusa 8 months ago
Freedomfighter what was that? The political structure of America is irrelevant; the problem is that she's just too massive. People from Mississippi and Massachusettes are completely different, and yet they must both fund the same programs through the same Senate and supreme court, etc. The problem is that there's just too much money involved. Giant companies getting giant contracts, giant banks and companies failing when somebody doesn't write the rules right.

Anyways, yes, I agree, seeing transcripts of speeches and campaign promises, as well as a record of the representative's voting history would be excellent. Also, if a candidate is running, maybe they can have a temporary file or something? Something voters can review before picking who they want to vote for.
Activity Chart
Controversy Meter
Idea Rank : 2301