Political Promises Must Be Treated As Legally Binding Contracts
Regardless of which party or candidate you support, you do so because they or the candidate promised you something in exchange for your vote.
This is the essence of a contract. In civil law the legal definition of a contract consists of three items:
1. An offer by one party (to sell something, buy something, do something)
2. Consideration (money, property, labor, anything valuable)
3. Acceptance (of the terms by a second party)
There are some fine distinctions that tweak the contract terms: both parties must be legally and mentally qualified to enter into the contract and must do so without coercion or the presence of unconscionable terms. The consideration must be specific and have value. The offer must be clear and well defined.
The validity of an oral contract (the proverbial “handshake”) is usually hard to prove. In the absence of a verifiable record, being able to prove that in a court of law is difficult. However, in the political arena, we have records — video, audio and position papers.
Has there ever been any adjudication of a political promise as a contract? I am unaware of any, but believe there should be.
Let’s look at this in the light of the three legal requirements for a valid contract:
1. (Offer) - The candidate promises/offers to do/not do something specific.
2. (Consideration) - The candidate promises to do/not do this in exchange for a vote.
3. (Acceptance) - The voter casts his/her vote on the basis of the candidate’s positions/promises.
There is no doubt of the candidate’s position. It’s recorded.
The voter must prove that (a) they voted for the candidate and (b) they did so on the basis of one or more positions.
With the ubiquity of digital scanners, cameras, and camcorders, the concerned citizen has many ways of recording their votes and positions. Having witnesses who will verify the validity of the recordings and scans would serve to confirm the votes and positions.
People who vote via absentee ballot can most easily record their votes.
THE ADVANTAGES
While breach of contract lawsuits are heard in civil courts and decided by a “preponderance of evidence” and while the courts have their own serious flaws, the standards of evidence are far higher there than in the political arena and must be decided by facts.
Because the lawsuits could be brought against the individual, the potential for punitive legal action would offer a good reason for the successful candidate to uphold the promises made.
Opponents to this could rightfully argue that conditions can change unexpectedly, affecting the elected candidate’s ability to fulfill promises and govern effectively at the same time. These extenuating circumstances, obviously, could be considered by the court and ameliorate any penalties for breach of contract. Obviously, the elected official would need to prove (to the legal standards in court) that he/she had done everything in their power to uphold their end of the contract.
