4 ms·

This law is the reason term-limits and liquid-democracy are such strong tools. Term limits are best implemented where someone must take on a different job ever

This law is the reason term-limits and liquid-democracy are such strong tools. Term limits are best implemented where someone must take on a different job every x years. This doesn't solve the problem of entrenched vampiric bureaucrats entirely, but it at least pushes them towards the chopping block. Liquid democracy is a type of democracy where people give their voting power for particular issues to whoever they trust most for that topic. Then that person may pass the cumulative votes onto someone they trust and believe in. The point of liquid democracy is to empower people who are actual experts in a subject. Rather than having laymen vote in ways that just empower the most socially adept. The entire skillset involved with gaining power is so time-consuming, it's incredibly rare for someone to have it and an actual technical skill at the same time.

wussboy 6y ago
What about the people who project themselves as being experts in a very believable fashion but are actually not experts? Human nature would tend to cause these people to double down on their own self delusion rather than admit they don’t actually know what they are talking about. How do we guard against that?
- krallja 6y ago
  Whiteboard interviews! Wait, no
barry-cotter 6y ago
Term limits are a terrible idea. They reduce the power and expertise of elected representatives in favor of the permanent government, civil service and lobbyists. On top of that they encourage corrupt behavior as you know you’re not getting elected so there is no reason not to beyond the threat of legal consequences. > Disentangling Accountability and Competence in Elections: Evidence from U.S. Term Limits > We exploit variation in U.S. gubernatorial term limits across states and time to empirically estimate two separate effects of elections on government performance. Holding tenure in office constant, differences in performance by reelection-eligible and term-limited incumbents identify an accountability effect: reelection-eligible governors have greater incentives to exert costly effort on behalf of voters. Holding term-limit status constant, differences in performance by incumbents in different terms identify a competence effect: later-term incumbents are more likely to be competent both because they have survived reelection and because they have experience in office. We show that economic growth is higher and taxes, spending, and borrowing costs are lower under reelection- eligible incumbents than under term-limited incumbents (accountability), and under reelected incumbents than under first-term incumbents (competence), all else equal. In addition to improving our understanding of the role of elections in representative democracy, these findings resolve an empirical puzzle about the disappearance of the effect of term limits on gubernatorial performance over time. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9639960/Alt_Disentangling.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9639960/Alt_Dise...
- JAlexoid 6y ago
  A: Power corrupts - is not a joke. Reelection doesn't prevent corruption at all. It's a complete non-factor. B: Elected officials are supposed to be the overseeing representatives, rather than functional executives.(think board vs C-suite). Elected executive is overall a poor idea.
  - landryraccoon 6y ago
    The person you're responding to provided a published study from Harvard as their evidence. What's your evidence he's wrong?
    - pmyteh 6y ago
      It's not just one study, either. This isn't the area of political science I work in. Amongst those who do, it's an essentially universally-held belief that term limits for legislators are empirically a bad idea. It's a shame. I like the idea of not concentrating power.
    - JAlexoid 6y ago
      FFS! Incumbency is a complete non-factor in corruption. It's always the ability to increase your power, while in office. Three countries with fairly open and competitive elections, and very high levels of corruption and high levels of incumbency: https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/india https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/india https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/turkey https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/turkey https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/hungary https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/hungary Then there are these least corrupt countries, that elect new people all the time: https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/finland https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/finland https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/new-zealand https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/new-zealand Oh... and let's not forget, that the study is about how efficient the governors are... not about corruption at all.

wussboy 6y ago

What about the people who project themselves as being experts in a very believable fashion but are actually not experts? Human nature would tend to cause these people to double down on their own self delusion rather than admit they don’t actually know what they are talking about. How do we guard against that?

krallja 6y ago
Whiteboard interviews! Wait, no

barry-cotter 6y ago

Term limits are a terrible idea. They reduce the power and expertise of elected representatives in favor of the permanent government, civil service and lobbyists. On top of that they encourage corrupt behavior as you know you’re not getting elected so there is no reason not to beyond the threat of legal consequences. > Disentangling Accountability and Competence in Elections: Evidence from U.S. Term Limits > We exploit variation in U.S. gubernatorial term limits across states and time to empirically estimate two separate effects of elections on government performance. Holding tenure in office constant, differences in performance by reelection-eligible and term-limited incumbents identify an accountability effect: reelection-eligible governors have greater incentives to exert costly effort on behalf of voters. Holding term-limit status constant, differences in performance by incumbents in different terms identify a competence effect: later-term incumbents are more likely to be competent both because they have survived reelection and because they have experience in office. We show that economic growth is higher and taxes, spending, and borrowing costs are lower under reelection- eligible incumbents than under term-limited incumbents (accountability), and under reelected incumbents than under first-term incumbents (competence), all else equal. In addition to improving our understanding of the role of elections in representative democracy, these findings resolve an empirical puzzle about the disappearance of the effect of term limits on gubernatorial performance over time. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9639960/Alt_Disentangling.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9639960/Alt_Dise...

JAlexoid 6y ago
A: Power corrupts - is not a joke. Reelection doesn't prevent corruption at all. It's a complete non-factor. B: Elected officials are supposed to be the overseeing representatives, rather than functional executives.(think board vs C-suite). Elected executive is overall a poor idea.
- landryraccoon 6y ago
  The person you're responding to provided a published study from Harvard as their evidence. What's your evidence he's wrong?
  - pmyteh 6y ago
    It's not just one study, either. This isn't the area of political science I work in. Amongst those who do, it's an essentially universally-held belief that term limits for legislators are empirically a bad idea. It's a shame. I like the idea of not concentrating power.
  - JAlexoid 6y ago
    FFS! Incumbency is a complete non-factor in corruption. It's always the ability to increase your power, while in office. Three countries with fairly open and competitive elections, and very high levels of corruption and high levels of incumbency: https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/india https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/india https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/turkey https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/turkey https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/hungary https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/hungary Then there are these least corrupt countries, that elect new people all the time: https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/finland https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/finland https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/new-zealand https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/new-zealand Oh... and let's not forget, that the study is about how efficient the governors are... not about corruption at all.