Should there be a penalty for elected officials who abandon their office?

I think there should be. After all, they are breaking a contract they made with the voters.
A monetary fine of several million or jail should do it.

No. Them leaving is pretty much political suicide anyway. That is enough.

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars that taxpayers donated because they believed in these people. I’m not sure what kind of penalty should be imposed. Perhaps they can never run for an office again?

@dverhey yes but he isn’t asking about the politicians’ suffering – what of their responsibility to the people – yes there should be a penalty

I want to add that politicians should only be allowed to step down if they officially and publicly proclaim that they are not up to the task, in other words, admit their incompetence. Their excuses (oh noes family) or (oh noes greater goals) are just disgusting. That would ensure that they won’t be coming back to do the same again later.

I don’t think so at all.

If they come to the realization that they are incapable of performing the duties needed to run their office effectively and at it’s optimum potential than why should they stay? It’d just be causing more harm than good keeping someone in there that doesn’t want to be.

a penalty would act as nothing but a deterrent for those who think they can’t get the job done, it wouldn’t solve any problems what so ever I don’t think.

Sorry to go against the flow here, but elected officials are not slaves. They have a right to do whatever job they want and leave whenever they want, just like you and I do in our jobs.

If they want to quit, let them. Odds are, we will get somebody better next time.

@PerryDolia those aren’t necessarily the odds – and when I obtained my current position, the contract is 2 years – the president’s is 4 at a time, he can’t just leave

@PerryDolia No one’s calling them slaves. I’m asking if there is an implied “contract”. Many of us do in fact sign contracts when we start a job, that lay out the specific reasons we could quit, or the company could fire us, and what the penalties would be if we did (a common one is “you cannot work for the competition for at least 1 year”). Your assertion that “They have a right to <...> leave whenever they want, just like you and I do in our jobs” is simply not correct.

As for “Odds are, we will get someone better”, that’s also not likely to be true. In the case of Senator Martinez, his temporary replacement will be appointed by the Florida Governor. That governor is himself planning on running for the Senate seat in the next regular election. You really think he’s going to appoint the Best Person for the Job, when he knows that whoever he appoints will be his primary election opponent in a few months? Highly unlikely. The citizens of Florida, from now until the next general election, are left with 1 elected senator, and 1 appointee, who no one voted for, who the Governor who wants the seat is free to pick from anyone of his choosing. That is not “someone better”, in my mind.

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 “a deterrent for those who think they can’t get the job done” is exactly what I’m proposing we need. An incentive for people likely to quit to not run in the first place, to not waste taxpayer time and energy, and not leave the electorate high and dry when they run out of stamina. Only people who KNOW they have the ability to see out their term should be running in the first place.

Seems to me a penalty would pretty much only make people who didn’t like them feel a little more vindicated, which seems pointless or counterproductive to me. And it seems like a clumsy kind of penalty, which would end up getting applied inappropriately. Even if it were a significant penalty or deterrent, applied only to actual undesired office-holders, it seems to me it would act to deter the wrong thing: it’d make undesired office-holders want to stay and continue to serve poorly.

Maybe there should be an incentive program for loathed officials to leave office. I wonder how much could be raised as an incentive to have different politicians leave office. How much would the world have offered G.W. Bush to leave before his term was up?

@Zaku we’re not talking about “undesired” office holders. We’re talking about office deserters.

@Mritty – Oh really? It sounds an awful lot like you don’t desire these would0be deserters to be in office. You know they want to leave, and want them around anyway? You want them to lead your government? Really?

There are specific constitutional provisions for the resignation of senators, presidents and VP’s. Interestingly, there is no explicit provision for resignation from the House. Some scholars think that this was intentional, and that the House has the right to refuse a resignation.

@Zaku
the thing is, if they simply leave the office with their cheap excuses, many people will buy into them, and this enables them to come back to office later with their incompetence.
When they are forced to stay, they will prove their incompetence, and they most likely will never be elected again.
When they are forced to declare their incompetence when deserting, the same thing is achieved.

@Zaku No. I want them to not leave their constuents high and dry. I want them to not create situations in which people who were not elected are suddenly holding their offices. I want them to have to think twice about throwing their hat in the ring, and realize that by putting their name on the ballot, they are making a commitment, and one that they have to abide by.

Do we really want officials who don’t want their jobs any more making decisions? I don’t think politics is something people go into lightly. If for some reason they cannot continue in their job, I’m fine with them leaving. Step on down folks… and as @dverhey said, enjoy your career suicide.

@Likeradar I guess I agree with that point – anyone who doesn’t think they can continue shouldn’t be there at all. But it’s still aggrevating. I guess I fall back to the “deterrent” for someone without the stamina to fulfill his/her term from ever running in the first place.

Perhaps when an elected official resigns, the candidate who received the next largest number of votes should be given the job. (ie their opponent)

@breedmitch while the idea has a certain appeal by means of sticking it to the official who’s deserting his/her electorate, that wouldn’t be good for the electorate either. We’d wind up with an official who the majority of the voters voted against. That doesn’t seem right.

@MrItty no one knows if they can effectively run office, they just think they can. curve balls get tossed at elected officials all the time, circumstances change, it wouldn’t weed anyone out, it would just keep bad officials in office for fear of being reprimanded.

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 you’re certainly not wrong there. I just can’t think of a better solution to this problem. And I do consider it a problem. An oath of office should mean something. It shouldn’t be something you can just change your mind on.

@MrItty unfortunately you can’t regulate it like that, it would simply create more problems. and besides, do you really think sarah palin wouldn’t have run for office if there was a possible penalty for resignation in place? no, she just would have stayed in office when she didn’t want to, creating more problems.

@ABoyNamedBoobs03
yes, but by that she would have proven her incompetence. what we have instead is her possibly running for president later. the thought of her possibly winning is dreadful.

@MrItty See, that’s the problem. You just can’t win here. Either you punish the person for leaving for usually a pretty justified reason, or you leave them be and let they end of their political career play out.

So I agree with you, people shouldn’t just up and leave their position, but they shouldn’t impose a law that wouldn’t really do anything to the deserters. A fine is no biggie for politicians, and a ban wouldn’t make a difference on their career anyway because what they did by resigning pretty much assured people that this is not exactly somebody they would vote for again.

@ragingloli But Palin resigning pretty much ruined her hopes of running in 2012. The fact is, America is not stupid enough to elect somebody that up and leaves in the middle of their term. She proved her incompetence by resigning.

We abolished slavery more than 100 years ago. You want to bring it back? You can’t force anyone to do a job or finish an employment contract if they want to retire. It’s not like signing up for the armed services.

@dverhey
I would not be so sure. The puplic memory is quite short and really selective.
The first thing Helmut Kohl did at the beginning of each term was to increase taxes. By the end of the term and when the elections came, no one really remembered that. He was German chancellor for 16 consecutive years.
The only thing that really will burn itself into public memory is a full and complete fuckup.

@daloon By your logic, anyone who signs a contract is a “slave”. Contracts are a reality. They exist. They are plentiful. And there are ABSOLUTELY penalties for breaking them.

Slavery is when one party subjugates the free will of another. A contract is when both parties agree to terms. I’m asserting that by running for office, the candidate/official has engaged in a contract, agreeing upon the terms that he/she will complete his/her term of office. That is not slavery.

@MrItty But the terms of the “contract” are spelled out in the constitution. If the constitution makes a provision for resignation, then how has the contract been violated?

@Harp You make an excellent point, and prior to your post, I hadn’t considered that the constitution does allow for resignation. I’m loathe to say “change the Constitution”, but that does seem to directly follow from my aggravation with this issue, doesn’t it?

It’s a job. Resign/quit whenever you like. It makes no difference to me.

@tinyfaery the difference is that it’s a job that you (the voter) have a hand in selecting the employee for, and if he/she resigns, that job that it is your right and priveldge to fill is simply given to someone else, without your input.

Man, if I worried about all that shit I’d never think about anything else. Like it makes a difference anyway. It’ll just end up being some other useless, power hungry politician.

There may be something different about employment contracts when compared to other contracts. In sports, the players can quit any time, and they can lose income they made or will make, but they can’t be made to work. It does no good to force someone to work. They can show up at the job, and still do nothing, or even be destructive.

No there shouldn’t. It’s not a crime to quit your job.

meh. i’d rather them quit than be in a job they realized they’re not cut out for. especially if they’d be affecting the people by being in a job they can’t handle.
especially palin. i’m voting for a party in that case! (;

When Nixon resigned, he was facing impeachment. Had he been impeached, he wouldn’t have recieved his retirement money from the government.
Palin doesn’t seem to be faced with that, but this allows her to make some fast money on a book deal and a radio show, plus public appearences.
Martinez is probably looking at a scandal, and wants out before it hits the papers.
They are all profiting, but we are rid of them. Good enough for me.