> I still object in this instance because promises were broken,

The fact that we ever even anticipate that a promises involving specific things ought to be made is a mistake in our civic education. It is a goddamned stupid expectation to have of elected officials. They give an oath. That oath defines their job.

Campaign promises should never be made, but no one significant can be elected without them. We ask them to lie and then are shocked when they do.

> and in a significant, yet to be determined, portion of the population the spirit of the constitution was broken as well.

But democracy, as an institution, is built to anticipate such failures. That's why there are impeachment procedures. That's why there are checks and balances. That's why there is civil disobedience. You can't call this a failure of democracy until those break down as well. (And, I concede, they probably will.)

Initial trust is always free. Candidates all compete for this initial implicitly transacted form of confidence. Then the electing public play the wait & see game. If the incumbent reneges on the promise, trust is understood to be broken, they vote someone else or soon enough become cynical of the entire system.

This system is bullshit. Promises made without accountability is the problem.

I think campaign promises should be made, but they should be made clearly with details of outcomes, timelines and plan Bs. Candidates can then compete on those detailed manifestos.

> This system is bullshit.

Of course it is. It's bullshit because you have no responsibility in it. You've abdicated your democratic capabilities by saying, "Promise me the world, and I'll wait and watch to see if you give it to me."

You're just a face in the audience. Why would anyone give a shit about being accountable to you?