What is Trump's opinion on the party platform

Why don't US presidential candidates issue formal written manifestos? [Duplicate]

Why don't US presidential candidates issue formal written manifestos of their intentions when they are elected - as British political parties customarily require?

  1. The parties of the United States do this.

  2. A political candidate is not a party. While the US president is the most powerful individual in US politics, the president is not the only one.

  3. The president has a stronger impact than any single legislator.

The result is that one presidential candidate's views are more important than those of another candidate. So people are listening to what the presidential candidates are saying about what their official platforms are saying. And it goes without saying that presidential candidates do not feel tied to the party platforms (although they help with writing). That makes the party platform less important.

However, Donald Trump was notable for the vagueness of his answers. There was constant commentary on this throughout the campaign. Outside of his major problems, he avoided such a thing as details. And even in its large editions, the details were a bit blurry. He wants a "big, beautiful wall" instead of a brick, concrete, or metal wall. He acted with his wealth as evidence of his ability. This is not a natural feature of the US system. Most presidential candidates try to get a higher level of detail. It is unclear whether this will become the new normal.

It is also worth considering one of the big differences between the US system and parliamentary systems as used in the UK. In parliamentary systems, people cannot vote for a prime minister. And a prime minister doesn't necessarily hold out all the time. David Cameron resigned and Margaret Thatcher was voted out of office. I don't have an example of a prime minister whose coalition collapsed and who was replaced by a prime minister from another party, but it can happen. Therefore, the party position is more important than that of the prime minister.

In many parliamentary systems, the party also controls membership. Hence, it is rare for politicians to leave the prime minister individually. The party platform (or manifest) is more important in this case as it is enforceable. In the US system, politicians are encouraged to break away from party orthodoxy. It notes that they see their voters as more important than their party affiliations.

There are still some mechanisms for controlling party members, but they are weaker. A politician who cannot get a plum committee mandate or a leadership position can move to another office. Representatives can be senators or governors. A senator can become a governor or a president. A governor can become a senator or president. As Donald Trump has proven, the party's support is not required to win a nomination, let alone an election. And while leaders need lawmakers to get things done, they don't need them for their positions.

David Richerby

"I have no example of a prime minister whose coalition has collapsed and has been replaced by a prime minister from another party, but it can happen." I doubt that ever happened. Coalition governments are incredibly rare in Britain and the collapse of one government would almost certainly lead to general elections. Not least because a coalition necessarily has more than half of the MPs, a coalition with different parties would require one party to "change sides".

David Richerby

I'm also not sure if this really answers the question. The question is why presidential candidates don't produce manifestos and your answer is that parties do and candidates are not parties. It's like asking a vegetarian why they don't eat meat and being told, "Well, Fred eats meat, but I'm not Fred." Why don't presidential candidates produce so many manifestos? how the parties? After all, the party platform will not be completed until the candidate has been selected.