3 ms·
The person you're responding to provided a published study from Harvard as their evidence. What's your evidence he's wrong?
by 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 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.