- Then how is this enforced? We have private prosecution in the UK, but it would only be enforceable via the courts. Right now, judges interpret the law and have the ability to end trials if they consider that there is not enough evidence. Plus, who is to say legally what is in the national interest? I don’t think that there is one single answer or one single set of policies which is legally correct. I think this is just a minefield.
- Except that this would not make them more transparent, and arguably makes them less so. MPs would only be as transparent as they were legally required to be, and transparency would no longer be a virtue among MPs. Furthermore, you are objectively wrong about not encouraging fake work. You should look into Goodhart’s law to exemplify this. Any performance metric which is transparent and easily understood will create perverse incentives.
- We have these things called elections where the electorate have the power to remove MPs who they don’t like.
- I think what you are missing is to do with theory of mind/theory of knowledge. What is or is not a manifesto pledge is debatable. Pledges are often wooley-worded things that can be interpreted in many different ways, not specifically drafted policy initiatives. Furthermore, policy is all interconnected, so a policy to reduce the deficit could see you whipping to pass a bill ordering the execution of all disabled people. That is an extreme example, but one does relate to the other and could be used in this way. So once again, you have the problem of “who decided that it is or is not a manifesto pledge?”
- The problem isn’t how hard it is to do, but how hard it is for the electorate to understand, and how fair it seems. “one person, one vote” seems fair and is easily understood. Each MP having a different vote weighting is complicated and feels confusing to people.
I would recommend that you check out my policy proposal for AMS. It isn’t a closed list, or a list system at all and would probably deal with your concerns better.
