5 ms·

Term limits remove good politicians as much as they remove bad ones. Plus, as many have pointed out before, you need experienced leadership. If everyone, by def

Term limits remove good politicians as much as they remove bad ones. Plus, as many have pointed out before, you need experienced leadership. If everyone, by definition, has less than eight years of experience in their role it'd be even more chaotic than it already is. The problem is not that politicians can get elected for decades, the problem is that incumbents have an unfair advantage. Fix that problem and term limits become a non-factor. Plus, to look at how ineffective rules like that are, Putin is president of Russia again despite their being term limits intended to prevent that.

ewzimm 10y ago
Much of the experience comes from teams of people who can move on to work for others. I'd be interested to see examples of important progress made by people who had been in power for decades which could not have been reasonably achieved by people with less time in office.
- astrodust 10y ago
  A first term senator is often viewed as highly inexperienced, and they get six years to get their shit together. If congress was limited to eight years like the president they'd barely be getting the hang of it when you turf them out. What about term limits for CEOs? Mayors? Football players? It's absurd. Remove barriers to competition and keep the best by having a robust, democratic process to weed out those who are bad. A badly thought out term limit implementation would see people flip from the house to the senate and back again, perhaps working in tandem to fend off any competition. What point does that useless exercise serve?
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  Sam Rayburn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Rayburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Rayburn
Donzo 10y ago
Congress should have never put term limits on the President, a response to the immense popularity of FDR and their conflicts with him. It was not an action that served the interests or will of the American people. It's also hilarious that people have even an inkling of hope that a majority of Congress would impose limits on their own power such as the type that is being discussed. Would you vote in favor of removing yourself from your position? Even if YOU would, do you think a majority of your coworkers would?
flatfilefan 10y ago
The Russian constitution explicitly allows a return to power after a term away like what Putin managed. So not exactly sure how that last statement of yours is an argument (pro or contra). In Germany, on the other hand, the Chancellor is not elected via a direct people vote, its terms are not limited. And just because of the segmentation of the partisan landscape Merkel could stay in power much longer than its party has even a third of the people votes. While not criticizing Merkel here for anything I just want to point out that a definition of a democracy must be a very flexible one to accommodate this constellation.
- adsche 10y ago
  Chancellor term limit is 4x4 years in Germany.
pizzetta 10y ago
Since absence of term limits is not quite working (we get career politicians) and challengers are at a disadvantage compared to incumbents, I think it's worth trying term limits. It gets us a bit closer to "demo + cracy". If we can get new non-entrenched people in power maybe we'd see better governance --otherwise why not create a ruling class, if career politicians execute better? Note, I would not advocate for a ruling class but people seem to be saying people who know governance and politics govern better (presuming experience means they can get things done for their constituency).
- astrodust 10y ago
  "I think it's worth trying term limits." You don't just try random shit at the national level and see how it works out. If you really think this is a great idea, try it at the state level, see how it plays out over decades and then get back to us. I agree that non-entrenched people are better for governance, but let's pin the blame on the real problem here: Corporate sponsorship of politicians. They do not care if they have to sponsor some new politician every eight years. It might even save them some money since these perennially new politicians would have less clout. It costs a lot more to buy a House Majority leader who's got 30 years of experience than Rep. Nobody who's a first-timer. You need to think these things through to their inevitable conclusion. One way you might even the playing field for opponents is to pay back a portion of the campaign costs on a per-vote received basis but only to non-incumbent candidates. It seems absurd to have to use public money to foster democracy, but there are far worse things to spend it on. Any ideas on how to de-corporatize the system? I don't think term limits help, in fact they make it worse.
  - pizzetta 10y ago
    Any contributions go to a common pot allotted by a caucus vote system. I don't think a crackpot going up for election should get the same (monetary/election) support as people who actually have tenable platforms, so I would not advocate for equal redistribution.
    - astrodust 10y ago

ewzimm 10y ago

Much of the experience comes from teams of people who can move on to work for others. I'd be interested to see examples of important progress made by people who had been in power for decades which could not have been reasonably achieved by people with less time in office.

astrodust 10y ago
A first term senator is often viewed as highly inexperienced, and they get six years to get their shit together. If congress was limited to eight years like the president they'd barely be getting the hang of it when you turf them out. What about term limits for CEOs? Mayors? Football players? It's absurd. Remove barriers to competition and keep the best by having a robust, democratic process to weed out those who are bad. A badly thought out term limit implementation would see people flip from the house to the senate and back again, perhaps working in tandem to fend off any competition. What point does that useless exercise serve?
aaron-lebo 10y ago
Sam Rayburn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Rayburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Rayburn

Donzo 10y ago

Congress should have never put term limits on the President, a response to the immense popularity of FDR and their conflicts with him. It was not an action that served the interests or will of the American people. It's also hilarious that people have even an inkling of hope that a majority of Congress would impose limits on their own power such as the type that is being discussed. Would you vote in favor of removing yourself from your position? Even if YOU would, do you think a majority of your coworkers would?

flatfilefan 10y ago

The Russian constitution explicitly allows a return to power after a term away like what Putin managed. So not exactly sure how that last statement of yours is an argument (pro or contra). In Germany, on the other hand, the Chancellor is not elected via a direct people vote, its terms are not limited. And just because of the segmentation of the partisan landscape Merkel could stay in power much longer than its party has even a third of the people votes. While not criticizing Merkel here for anything I just want to point out that a definition of a democracy must be a very flexible one to accommodate this constellation.

adsche 10y ago
Chancellor term limit is 4x4 years in Germany.

pizzetta 10y ago

Since absence of term limits is not quite working (we get career politicians) and challengers are at a disadvantage compared to incumbents, I think it's worth trying term limits. It gets us a bit closer to "demo + cracy". If we can get new non-entrenched people in power maybe we'd see better governance --otherwise why not create a ruling class, if career politicians execute better? Note, I would not advocate for a ruling class but people seem to be saying people who know governance and politics govern better (presuming experience means they can get things done for their constituency).

astrodust 10y ago
"I think it's worth trying term limits." You don't just try random shit at the national level and see how it works out. If you really think this is a great idea, try it at the state level, see how it plays out over decades and then get back to us. I agree that non-entrenched people are better for governance, but let's pin the blame on the real problem here: Corporate sponsorship of politicians. They do not care if they have to sponsor some new politician every eight years. It might even save them some money since these perennially new politicians would have less clout. It costs a lot more to buy a House Majority leader who's got 30 years of experience than Rep. Nobody who's a first-timer. You need to think these things through to their inevitable conclusion. One way you might even the playing field for opponents is to pay back a portion of the campaign costs on a per-vote received basis but only to non-incumbent candidates. It seems absurd to have to use public money to foster democracy, but there are far worse things to spend it on. Any ideas on how to de-corporatize the system? I don't think term limits help, in fact they make it worse.
- pizzetta 10y ago
  Any contributions go to a common pot allotted by a caucus vote system. I don't think a crackpot going up for election should get the same (monetary/election) support as people who actually have tenable platforms, so I would not advocate for equal redistribution.
  - astrodust 10y ago