I agree in principle with the concept of the proposed amendments, but the level of factual evidence needed to prove certain transgressions would be nearly impossible, if not entirely possible under the mechanics of our system in general. Other changes need to be made to make our whole justice system more evidence based rather than based upon pure subjective feelings or political motivation.
For example, under our current system, any official can be successfully removed via the recall process for any and all reasons. If people don't like what a Delegate or any other government official does, or someone simply doesn't like a particular government official, someone can simply put removal of any official simply by initiating the proper legislative action. Now, this is corruption by definition - a system in which you have mob rule in which if enough people can be convinced that an official should be removed from office without any legal transgression of the legal code or constitution, or that enough people decide 'we don't like this guy, so lets recall him without any transgression of the legal code or constitution' being sufficient for a recall.
This is especially true in elections or corruption of elections. I am fully with GMB on her despising of cronyism and nepotism, but, unfortunately, that is how political systems work regardless of how the system is corrupted. cronyism and nepotism are indeed broad terms and not necessarily bad things, per se, unless it conducted with the intent to subvert the system (and that would be hard to prove and in most instances not even a violation of the legal code or constitution because that's how a democracy works - if enough people want to abolish the bill of rights, it can be legally and constitutionally accomplished - we have no constitutional restraints on peculiar legislation which would, for lack better terms, exempt someone by legislative act from the protections of the constitution).
Offering goodies and positions to people in return for their votes is the very nature of politics conducted by any astute candidate or politician and corrupt or not,that is how things work no matter what legal or constitutional restrictions you put on it because no one 'conspiring' in such arrangements would be crazy enough to incriminate themselves if such a practice was illegal.
The problem is, that with 'direct democracy' in absolute form, without the proper protections for the rights of individuals and political minorities, is eventually doomed to failure. I hate to use an RL example of this, but I think this quote shows how 'corruption' tends to work in pure democracies:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler
At first, this quote might seem inapplicable to the NS/TNP world, but when you consider that power and influence is our form of currency and fiscal transaction, it applies perfectly.
One runs for Delegate or whatever; then one promises certain key individuals appointed positions in return for their votes and whomever's votes they can garner in return for supporting their agenda, it's potentially game over for democracy. While this particular flaw has never really expressed itself in TNP (where traditionally any rogue seizes power by brutally seizing the Delegacy), it is a method that is out there and very to implement in a system where whimsical public opinion can be whipped up by someone crafty enough to exploit the 'pure democracy' nature of our system.
So, if you are worried about corruption in elections, it is better to work on safeguarding against exploiting the actual system under which we operate. Think about it.
