4 ms·

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 t

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
    One person's crackpot is another's advocate. The amount of money going to fringe candidates would be minimal at best, while those that are serious contenders would get a well-deserved bit of assistance. You can fine-tune this a bit, like have minimum vote requirements (e.g. 5% of the votes) in order to be part of the program, but the basic idea helps frame things better. If you look at how most elections go, the extreme fringe candidates get at most hundreds of votes, it's inconsequential in the scheme of things. This was roughly how it worked at the federal level in Canada until the Conservative party cancelled it in 2015. If you got at least 2% of the vote you got a "per-vote subsidy" of $1.75 per vote. The reason the Conservative party killed the program was because it hurt the other parties more than it hurt them. As they were always better at raising money, anything that cut funding to the other parties was seen as a big win for them: Like the Republicans they are very self-interested. There are multiple parties active in the Canadian system, some only getting 5-10% of the votes, which means they're at even more of a disadvantage than before.
- cdoxsey 10y ago
  California has term limits.
  - cobralibre 10y ago
    That's true. http://www.economist.com/node/1897472 http://www.economist.com/node/1897472 "Initiatives are also responsible for another feature that makes the Assembly unworkable: term limits. These may sometimes be desirable but in California they are simply too short. Proposition 140 set them at six years for Assembly members, eight for state senators. "As a result, representatives do not have a good grasp of the details of bills, have little long-term loyalty to the institution they serve and can sometimes be unduly influenced by more experienced lobbyists. No sooner do people become head of the assembly, or of an important committee, than they are term-limited out. Legislative leadership becomes almost impossible."

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
  One person's crackpot is another's advocate. The amount of money going to fringe candidates would be minimal at best, while those that are serious contenders would get a well-deserved bit of assistance. You can fine-tune this a bit, like have minimum vote requirements (e.g. 5% of the votes) in order to be part of the program, but the basic idea helps frame things better. If you look at how most elections go, the extreme fringe candidates get at most hundreds of votes, it's inconsequential in the scheme of things. This was roughly how it worked at the federal level in Canada until the Conservative party cancelled it in 2015. If you got at least 2% of the vote you got a "per-vote subsidy" of $1.75 per vote. The reason the Conservative party killed the program was because it hurt the other parties more than it hurt them. As they were always better at raising money, anything that cut funding to the other parties was seen as a big win for them: Like the Republicans they are very self-interested. There are multiple parties active in the Canadian system, some only getting 5-10% of the votes, which means they're at even more of a disadvantage than before.
cdoxsey 10y ago
California has term limits.
- cobralibre 10y ago
  That's true. http://www.economist.com/node/1897472 http://www.economist.com/node/1897472 "Initiatives are also responsible for another feature that makes the Assembly unworkable: term limits. These may sometimes be desirable but in California they are simply too short. Proposition 140 set them at six years for Assembly members, eight for state senators. "As a result, representatives do not have a good grasp of the details of bills, have little long-term loyalty to the institution they serve and can sometimes be unduly influenced by more experienced lobbyists. No sooner do people become head of the assembly, or of an important committee, than they are term-limited out. Legislative leadership becomes almost impossible."