Would you support this kind of political system?

I have been thinking, refining and fixing this idea for a long time, and i think it’s good enough to actually be put out in the open for public scrutiny, please be honest in your critiques, i don’t like when people sugar coat their opinions.

Premise: I think democracy, as intended nowdays, is based on a flawed premise, the premise that we are all equals. This worked back in ancient greece when the voting population was only composed by rich male citizens, which also implied educated at the time.

What the premise shoud be nowdays, IMO, is that we should all be given equal opportunities and equal treatement, but also we should all be expected to meet a certain standard. This sounds really worse than it is, just hear me out.

I am completely uninterested in politics because i think that a system where candidates can promise anything but don’t have to deliver is a system that can’t work, because it relies on honesty and god knows how big a shortage of that there is. Therefore i don’t read up on the candidates, don’t read the programs and don’t vote. Yet my vote would count as much as my mother’s who instead is somehow convinced that the system works and actually cares enough to read every program and make a conscious choice, and her vote is worth as much as that of, say, a brainwashed religious fundamentalist that votes for the party his preferred religious authority tells them to. This is wrong. It’s not only detrimental to society itself, it’s also wrong. It doesn’t reward effort and interest, it only punishes it by equating it to zero regardless.

So here is my idea, it needs a lot of work to actually be implemented because it needs us to change the way we see the government before it can actually be put to work. We need to start seeing the government as our emplyee rather than the other way around.

1) Every party running in any election has to present a program that is considered legally binding within a certain margin of error. Say someone promises a 10% tax cut to the middle class, they have to be able to at least give, say, a 7.5% tax cut.
If any term of the program is unfulfilled by the end of the mandate, or worse the government has acted contrarily to the terms of the program, the elected individuals are put on trial for fraud at the state’s expense. If they’re found guilty, the laws and/or policies in question are abolished from the moment the sentence passes. Mind you that this trial should not be by jury (As if there was any reason to specify that trial by jury is bollocks), because this kind of judgement needs insight in the matter of legislation and possibly even economics. This last part is not a new idea, it was used in ancient Rome during the age of the republic, before the empire, and it kept people from deliberately fucking the state over. It’s not very easy to implement but it would work. This would lead politicians to promise things they can actually deliver on,

2) We change the way voting works. With legally binding programs we can actually somewhat rely on them to be significant predictions of what a candidate will do if elected, and thus we introduce this: every ballot will be accompanied and indivisible from a 10 questions true or false test randomly selected from a pool of a sufficently high number of questions created from the legally deposited programs of every party. Say there’s 3 parties, 100 questions each, we already create a pool that is too big to memorize for anyone without actually knowing the programs. The ballots are printed in the booth and the computer selects the questions randomly at the moment of printing. Every wrong answer detracts 10% from your vote (or every correct one adds 1 to your vote starting from 0, if we want to avoid going into the decimal places). This should possibly be coupled with the Alternative voting system, to balance it even more. This way we’re not denying anyone their vote a priori, we’re just evaluating the effort and thought behind the vote on its own merits and, eventually, ignoring or taking in lesser consideration the ones that don’t make the cut.

3) Every aemendment to the constitution has to be voted by referendum, with the same system but with questions regarding the original and new texts and their legal implications. Every law proposal has to be compared to the present constitution beforehand and can only be voted upon if it doesn’t contrast with it.

That’s pretty much it, i will ad pieces if i should realize i forgot something important. I know this sytem lends itself to exploitation, but so does the present one and actually so does every system mankind has ever concieved, what we usually base our decisions on is whether something works in theory, which this, IMO, does much better than democracy as it is today.