3 ms·

>Elections are frequently won by incumbents on name recognition. Doesn't that imply that voters don't know better? arguments like that don't fare well in my op

• pmiller2 7y ago
  In your opinion? I don't understand your point. Do you think I'm underestimating the ignorance of the average voter? Also, it's "fare," not "fair" in this context, FYI.
  • wpasc 7y ago
    TY for the spelling correction. My point only is: Given that many incumbents win re-election on name recognition alone, doesn't refute the above post mentioning that elections can serve as term limits. To say to a voter, "we're instituting term limits because you voters don't learn about challengers to incumbents". This proposition would not be popular amongst voters even if it is true that people are ignorant and stupid when it comes to voting. Just because voters may not take full advantage of elections' ability to oust a politician may not suffice as reason to alter who the voters want. Voters voting on name recognition vs. actually liking a rep kinda have to be treated equally. If not, a rule curbing that may be interpreted as limiting people's choice. Again, I'm not disagreeing with you! just trying to state how a new rule like term limits could be perceived and the difficulty such a perception would create.
    • pmiller2 7y ago
      I see. I didn’t intend that to be a point that stands on its own, merely a partial explanation for why incumbents win so much.
• veeralpatel979 7y ago
  Is that the reason, though? Incumbents also tend to be better funded, many of them lack strong incumbents, and many of them build up goodwill via constituency services.