I know this is well meaning, but it will almost certainly backfire. Senior leaders (public and private) need to be able to have confidential discussions where they acknowledge trade offs and negotiate deals: if everything was open and broadcast, you'd get a combination of constant nonstop grandstanding and highly aggressive opposition research that would look for snippets that look bad out of context.

There is clearly a trade-off here, but I don't see as clearly weighted in the same direction as you do.

What value is there in allowing politicians to keep their own statements of blatant self interest out of the public record?

I think that requiring politicians to make public their statements explaining their the decisions on behalf of their constituents would be and unalloyed public good.

> I think that requiring politicians to make public their statements explaining their the decisions on behalf of their constituents would be and unalloyed public good

Sure, this is fine, but that's very different from requiring all their interactions to be public. Put it this this: how often do you ever hear anything insightful or intelligent in a public congressional/senate hearing? It's always politicians trying to ask really stupid gotcha questions that will make them look good to the audience at home.

What if the feed was delayed by 6 to 18 months or so?

Then the bad actors have too much time to do the dirty. (See Senators stock trades)

i think there is more opportunity than you thing for things to work out well, because the tide of transparency would lift all boats, just the same.

You attack someone, you better know you can be attacked.

I think this would work wonders to introduce principles into people that are anything but principled.

If you vote for someone that says he's for X, but then he actually secretly negotiating to drop X from the table, then what good was that campaign promise / vote ? Shouldn't it be necessary to know you were effectively defrauded ?

There's almost no instance where more transparency is a net loss to society. Politics is far and away one of least transparent undertakings. It is desperate for more transparency, not less

Afaik in Italy all public meetings are public, and streamed live online from volunteers (small municipalities) or national TV and radio (lower/higher house)

So just more of what they do already, and a bit more transparently?

Almost all meetings and forms of communication ARE open to the public, with nearly unlimited public comment.

San Francisco’s problems are not caused by shadowy figures doing devious deeds in the dark.

They’re caused by rampant small-c conservatism: a constant drive to veto everything and anything. In the well meaning interest of allowing the public to participate, anything and everything can be stopped be very people.

Power should only be given to those who don't seek it out. I think "Songs of Distant Earth" had the right idea with random selection of the mayor or council. Just imagine if we picked from a pool of 500 randomly chosen citizens who are active in their community. Like if we required volunteer service before you could be a member of the possible pool. I would actually love to see this put into practice.

Tidbit: the term for this is "sortition."

Yes! a) great book and b) great concept. I would love to see this too. How to start? Small town mayor? Medium sized city council?

1) Introduce more volatity. For example, make a random chance your ambition will not be reached even if you do everything right: You run for X position, and either there's (a) a random chance that 2nd,3rd, or 4th place will win and (b) a random chance that your win will be swapped with another random position (say, winner of public advocate switches for winner of state assembly seat, etc). This would scare away big money from campaign politics.

2)Introduce Sacrifice. Cap lifetime earnings to scare away career politicians, and actually bring people who intend to sacrifice. If you win an election, you sign an agreement with the IRS that any lifetime earnings in excess of your avg earnings before being elected, will be taxed at 99% tax rate.

Watch those "speaking fees" dissappear overnight!

3) Introduce more turnover. Max 8 years as a publicly elected or appointed figure, and perhaps 16 on public payroll for anyone making X times of poverty income level. No one should be able to life in luxury, off the govt, forever.

Always welcome in new blood.

Is there any government anywhere in the world, at any level down to an individual town, where this has ever been shown to work? If not, what expertise are you drawing from that has you making these assertions with such confidence?

I can't speak for California, but Illinois requires these things to be public (either automatically or via a FOIA request). Most state FOIAs work in the same way, but maybe with different sets of exceptions