Earlier quoted context omitted.
One reason for this is because once elected, there is very little that the population can do to hold the official accountable. You can’t remove officials for not fulfilling their promises. They can also delay until it’s too late by saying, “I’m working on it.” Then once out of office, they are accountable for nothing. Job safety is built into the position for good reason. However, it’s been perverted to allow officia…
I am curious, what would such a system look like? I am thinking that a "promise" is not a quantitative term. It needs to be ratified into specific data oriented actions that can go through a litmus test whether it was fulfilled or betrayed. After that, one idea is to have an accountability score tracked by bureaucracy and have that printed on the ballot along with their principle accomplishments in the supplement. An…
But now you'll get an unstable system where candidates get kicked out all the time and are too populist because they don't expect to live long.
So add a low-pass filter. When the moving average of the candidate's support falls below the threshold and a definite other candidate's support is high enough, replace the incumbent with that challenger.
You might even increase the duration of the moving average with time, like the doubling trick in multi-armed bandits. The logic is that a candidate who has shown that he can weather the initial period without getting voted out can be trusted with more long-term decisions, i.e. actions speak louder than words.