3 ms·
There is actually an interesting trade-off with term-limits. If the term-limits are brief, then lawmakers have to frequently rely on the party's election and f
by richardfeynman 9y ago
There is actually an interesting trade-off with term-limits.
If the term-limits are brief, then lawmakers have to frequently rely on the party's election and fundraising apparatus, and therefore feel pressure to tow the party line.
If the term-limits are extended, then lawmakers aren't as beholden to the populous, and can therefore become corrupt.
I think I first read this balance articulated (much more clearly than I'm putting it here) in a book by the economist James Buchanan.
- mtgx 9y agoI think it's pretty easy to empirically find what's the right balance if we analyze history. In fact, I think most countries have already found that equilibrium, at least for government leaders. It seems to be 8-10 years at most. 20 years definitely feels like it's too long, even for super-appreciated leaders like Merkel, who I've seen make many bad/corrupt decisions lately, by propping up the coal industry, the polluting car industry, and so on. 20 years is just too long for any human to run a country. For Congress/Parliament members, perhaps a little longer would be reasonable, but probably no more than 20 years.
- richardfeynman 9y agoIntuitively, I agree. I wonder whether such a study has actually been conducted, and what measures of corruption would look like. Good point.