3 ms·

I have to say that the idea of an arbitrary limit on terms seems like a bad hack to fix a dysfunctional democracy. It's at least as likely, if not more so, to e

I have to say that the idea of an arbitrary limit on terms seems like a bad hack to fix a dysfunctional democracy. It's at least as likely, if not more so, to eliminate a good leader and clear the way for one of several bad leaders to get in. In a working democracy, people would not put up with a bad leader for more than the remainder of a term, after they show their true colours. In a highly functional democracy, a visionary leader should be able to initiate multi-generation projects and see them through to completion. Is this a scheme to prevent the members of a two party system from coalescing into a single party?

ZenoArrow 10y ago
Yes, it's a safety valve to guard against dysfunctional democracies. It's a compromise, and yes you will limit the service of both good and bad leaders, but that doesn't make the compromise any less valid. Many people fear change, and don't like to admit they made a mistake, and base a lot of their vote on personality rather than achievement, and as a result of these factors people can keep voting for someone even if they do a poor or mediocre job. I personally believe the best form of democracy would be something along the lines of a liquid democracy, coupled with a constitution that protected the rights of everyone (to ensure those with minority viewpoints would always be entitled to a base level of respect). If you're interested in finding out about liquid democracy, this video provides a good introduction: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0_Vhldz-8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0_Vhldz-8
GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
Why do you assume that there's at most one good leader?
- happyslobro 10y ago
  Because I'm an incorrigible optimist? No but seriously, do you have any anecdotes regarding an election where a difficult choice had to be made between multiple good (from the perspective of a large majority) candidates? Because I don't (Canadian, in my 30s).
- happyslobro 10y ago
  The problem that I was referring to above, is that a good leader might be able to rule for 40 years, if there were no term limits. Leaders who are worthy of that privilege / burden are so rare though, that if you eliminate on just because of an arbitrary limit, then they will likely be replaced by some worse than them. Bad rulers are unlikely to win a third term in the first place, assuming that the electoral system is working.

ZenoArrow 10y ago

Yes, it's a safety valve to guard against dysfunctional democracies. It's a compromise, and yes you will limit the service of both good and bad leaders, but that doesn't make the compromise any less valid. Many people fear change, and don't like to admit they made a mistake, and base a lot of their vote on personality rather than achievement, and as a result of these factors people can keep voting for someone even if they do a poor or mediocre job. I personally believe the best form of democracy would be something along the lines of a liquid democracy, coupled with a constitution that protected the rights of everyone (to ensure those with minority viewpoints would always be entitled to a base level of respect). If you're interested in finding out about liquid democracy, this video provides a good introduction: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0_Vhldz-8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fg0_Vhldz-8

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago

Why do you assume that there's at most one good leader?

happyslobro 10y ago
Because I'm an incorrigible optimist? No but seriously, do you have any anecdotes regarding an election where a difficult choice had to be made between multiple good (from the perspective of a large majority) candidates? Because I don't (Canadian, in my 30s).
happyslobro 10y ago
The problem that I was referring to above, is that a good leader might be able to rule for 40 years, if there were no term limits. Leaders who are worthy of that privilege / burden are so rare though, that if you eliminate on just because of an arbitrary limit, then they will likely be replaced by some worse than them. Bad rulers are unlikely to win a third term in the first place, assuming that the electoral system is working.