4 ms·

Career congresspersons are beholden to those that secure their reelection. That's the current steady state system we have now. Term limits forces that dynamic t

by cjslep 7y ago

Career congresspersons are beholden to those that secure their reelection. That's the current steady state system we have now. Term limits forces that dynamic to no longer apply to the final term, which frees congresspeople from this dynamic for at least one term. It also forces clearer the revolving door between the private sector and politics as then the no-longer congressperson gets hired into a company.

hannasanarion 7y ago
>Career congresspersons are beholden to those that secure their reelection Yeah, those people are called "voters". That's how it's supposed to work. We want congresspeople to feel beholden to them. > It also forces clearer the revolving door between the private sector and politics as then the no-longer congressperson gets hired into a company. Isn't this just motivation for more cronyism? You're basically arguing that the last term of any congressperson should be spent working for a company instead of the people.
- cjslep 7y ago
  > Yeah, those people are called "voters". That's how it's supposed to work. We want congresspeople to feel beholden to them. No it's not. It's to the people with money which let's them get to the voters. Because otherwise that money is going to an alternate candidate that plays ball. Have you ever wondered where the blue-collar Democrats of the 1970's went, for example? Businesses and those with money instead financing better campaigns in return for business representation, won. It's why both Democrats and Republicans have generally represented corporate interests since Reagan. > Isn't this just motivation for more cronyism? No, it's motivation for making the existing cronyism even more transparent. Or, incentivizing those who did their terms to return to the communities they helped represent and move on with their non-political life.
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    So if your real problem is with money in politics, why not get money out of politics instead of targeting this weird, roundabout, more difficult to implement, and antidemocratic method that may not have any actual impact on the problem?
    - cjslep 7y ago
      > weird Term limits already exist for other positions. It is not a strange concept. > roundabout My problem is not with "money in politics", it is with career politicians. > more difficult to implement Forgive my laughter, setting a term limits is way easier than your abstract idealism of removing money from politics. > antidemocratic Everyone can still vote and is still emancipated. The America after the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution is no less a Representative Democracy than before. I'm all for honest and open discussion but it is clear this is not one of them.
- a_c_s 7y ago
  No, they are beholden to whomever can help them raise enough money for re-election. It is far easier to have 1-2 industries you make happy and can write you a big check every 2 or 6 years than reaching out to raise grassroots support from thousands of individual voters.
- Jorge1o1 7y ago
  It turns out that merely repeating the name of a candidate over and over again alongside some platitude or glittering generality is remarkably effective in gaining voters. But TV ads are expensive, hence the several million dollars each candidate spends every election cycle.
jcadam 7y ago
Make service in the House work more like jury duty. Everyone living in a district who meets the minimum requirements (age, etc) has their name thrown into a lottery. Representatives get selected randomly and have to serve for one session, then they go home. Oh, and have Senators be appointed by state governments again, like they used to be.

by cjslep 7y ago

hannasanarion 7y ago

>Career congresspersons are beholden to those that secure their reelection Yeah, those people are called "voters". That's how it's supposed to work. We want congresspeople to feel beholden to them. > It also forces clearer the revolving door between the private sector and politics as then the no-longer congressperson gets hired into a company. Isn't this just motivation for more cronyism? You're basically arguing that the last term of any congressperson should be spent working for a company instead of the people.

cjslep 7y ago
> Yeah, those people are called "voters". That's how it's supposed to work. We want congresspeople to feel beholden to them. No it's not. It's to the people with money which let's them get to the voters. Because otherwise that money is going to an alternate candidate that plays ball. Have you ever wondered where the blue-collar Democrats of the 1970's went, for example? Businesses and those with money instead financing better campaigns in return for business representation, won. It's why both Democrats and Republicans have generally represented corporate interests since Reagan. > Isn't this just motivation for more cronyism? No, it's motivation for making the existing cronyism even more transparent. Or, incentivizing those who did their terms to return to the communities they helped represent and move on with their non-political life.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  So if your real problem is with money in politics, why not get money out of politics instead of targeting this weird, roundabout, more difficult to implement, and antidemocratic method that may not have any actual impact on the problem?
  - cjslep 7y ago
    > weird Term limits already exist for other positions. It is not a strange concept. > roundabout My problem is not with "money in politics", it is with career politicians. > more difficult to implement Forgive my laughter, setting a term limits is way easier than your abstract idealism of removing money from politics. > antidemocratic Everyone can still vote and is still emancipated. The America after the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution is no less a Representative Democracy than before. I'm all for honest and open discussion but it is clear this is not one of them.
a_c_s 7y ago
No, they are beholden to whomever can help them raise enough money for re-election. It is far easier to have 1-2 industries you make happy and can write you a big check every 2 or 6 years than reaching out to raise grassroots support from thousands of individual voters.
Jorge1o1 7y ago
It turns out that merely repeating the name of a candidate over and over again alongside some platitude or glittering generality is remarkably effective in gaining voters. But TV ads are expensive, hence the several million dollars each candidate spends every election cycle.

jcadam 7y ago

Make service in the House work more like jury duty. Everyone living in a district who meets the minimum requirements (age, etc) has their name thrown into a lottery. Representatives get selected randomly and have to serve for one session, then they go home. Oh, and have Senators be appointed by state governments again, like they used to be.