4 ms·
Term limits are a terrible idea. They reduce the power and expertise of elected representatives in favor of the permanent government, civil service and lobbyist
by 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 agoA: 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 agoThe person you're responding to provided a published study from Harvard as their evidence. What's your evidence he's wrong?
- pmyteh 6y agoIt'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 agoFFS! 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.