5 ms·

Yeah what happens is because we have no term limits these Senators stay in office for 100 years and amass huge amounts of insider info, its an incredibly debase

Yeah what happens is because we have no term limits these Senators stay in office for 100 years and amass huge amounts of insider info, its an incredibly debased system at this point.

syki 5y ago
What does one have to do with the other? Do you have valid reasons for thinking corruption of Senators or Representatives would be less with term limits? I think the level of corruption would not change with term limits and there are some negatives with term limits. I don't see how it would help.
- cmiles74 5y ago
  With limits on how long they can hold the office, there will be a much shorter time span in which they can collect and act on inside information. There will also be a much shorter time span in which they can form relationships with these companies that could lead to the collection of inside information. In my opinion it's not a solution but it is another way to limit the amount of this kind of trading.
  - syki 5y ago
    Yes, it might limit this type of trading but the corruption will just be another type.
- nescioquid 5y ago
  Pelosi has been in congress since the 80s. I do not think congress-critters will support higher ethical standards that prohibit them from profiting off of insider information if they think that means putting themselves in a straight-jacket for the rest of their lives. The ability to profit off insider information is probably a reason some of our congress-critters stay in office rather than retiring and pursuing goals elsewhere. Through the 80s and 90s, I recall politicians and talking heads using the phrase "...even the appearance of impropriety". I'm tempted to conclude there's something telling about the way this quaint phrase seems to have disappeared. EDIT: not saying term limits are the answer, just that I can see the relationship suggested.
  - syki 5y ago
    My contention is that we have very corrupt politicians leading the country. That corruption will not go away with the imposition of term limits. It's a bad response to the problem of corruption. I don't know what would solve the problem but strongly feel term limits is not the solution. I know you aren't saying that term limits are the answer; I'm clarifying my position. I do agree that politicians aren't even trying to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Their response seems to be that in the absence of absolute proof of impropriety then any appearance of it is ok.
    - felistoria 5y ago
      The solution is the require everyone that holds high office to put all their investments in a blind trust when they take the oath of office.
    - asimpletune 5y ago
      Can you elaborate why term limits wouldn’t at least help the problem?
      - syki 5y ago
        A term limited politician will want to secure their future and will go into the job with the knowledge that their time is limited no matter how well they do the job. They’ll seek compensation. The corruption will morph to adapt to the new reality of term limitations but the amount of corruption will not decrease.
        asimpletune 5y ago
        I see, so basically people are greedy. Yet under that same predicate, wouldn’t the same greedy senator be worse in-perpetuity?
        syki 5y ago
        Neither worse nor better. Just different form of corruption. Term limits is not a good way to fight corruption. The Democrats held the House of Representatives for something like 40 years straight until 1994. You had famous scandals involving entrenched Democratic Congressmen. In 1994 Republicans made term limits a rallying point and they took over the House. Both parties have since jostled for control of the House. But when Republicans had the power they did not impose term limits. It’s just a rallying point and will do nothing to stop corruption. There may be good reasons for term limits but anti-corruption isn’t one of them.
- mech422 5y ago
  >> Do you have valid reasons for thinking corruption of Senators or Representatives would be less with term limits? I like to think people's terms limit would be reached before they get jaded and cynical.. At the very least, it would reduce the number of years (and hence the total amount of money) lobbyists, etc. would be focused on them. Someone that might think $100K in lobbyist money isn't worth the risk of repercussions, might think $1M (over time) is.
  - syki 5y ago
    I believe otherwise. A term limited politician will look for ways to secure their future. I think with term limits we'd end up with even more legislation effectively written by lobbyists. Think Robert Rubin type corruption on an even wider scale than it is today.
    - mech422 5y ago
      I don't think we _could_ end up with more legislation written by lobbyists. It's pretty much 100% already. I think at the worst, we'd be right where we are now... Plus with term limits, at least we'd be rid of them, instead of having them perpetually come back... However, the litmus test would probably be if we actually get term limits.. After all, if they're that corrupt, they won't vote against their own interests.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    Lots of already cynical people go into politics.
    - mech422 5y ago
      True dat
lkrubner 5y ago
Term limits shift power away from the representatives that the public has democratically chosen and instead empowers those bureaucrats who serve in government for 40 or 50 years. Please see: "Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government" by Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels. https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Realists-Elections-Responsive-Government/dp/0691178240/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=democracy+for+realists&qid=1639674451&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Realists-Elections-Responsi... If you want democratically elected representatives to be able to gain power over the machinery of government, then you should advocate for longer terms, without limits. If every Senator was elected for 15 years, we would get better government.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 5y ago
  40 to 50 years is still greater than 15 though isn't it?
  - lkrubner 5y ago
    True, though the ratio of 15 to 45 is better than the ratio of 2 to 45. I'm assuming there is some law of diminishing returns here, that hasn't set in at 2 or 4 years, but has set in by 15 years. In other words, a politician who has to run for office every 2 years is powerless in the face of civil servants, whereas a political who runs for office every 15 years definitely has the time needed to force a showdown with civil servants, whenever civil servants are acting in a rogue manner.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > True, though the ratio of 15 to 45 is better than the ratio of 2 to 45. Senate terms are 6 years, not 2.
      - bumby 5y ago
        Are we still talking about Pelosi? She’s not a Senator
deltarholamda 5y ago
Senators used to be representatives of the States, appointed by the States' legislatures. We should return to that. I'm ambivalent on term limits for House members like Pelosi, though. They are representatives for the people of the States, and as such the people they represent have the right and ability to kick them out, or not. There is also the argument that would you rather have a dog that knows where the bones are buried, or a dog that digs up the whole yard? That said, members of Congress should have severe restrictions on investing for themselves and their immediate family. They either need to police it themselves, or there needs to be some kind of law that covers it. Not that that is going to happen, as we have the ultimate in foxes guarding the henhouse in our government these days, but it would make for a powerful populist position if anybody had the courage to push it.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Senators used to be representatives of the States, appointed by the States' legislatures. We should return to that. That might be tolerable, right after we reduce the powers of the Senate to those of the British House of Lords, which it's original theory of representation is as outdated and inconsistent with representative democracy as, and transfer it's para-executive functions to the House.
chaosharmonic 5y ago
Tbf it's a tangibly more meaningful problem with people who are actually Senators, aren't up for reelection every 2 years, and are in a chamber that's disproportionately weighted toward backwaters by design (and not just as a function of the redistricting process). Pelosi is a Representative, so none of those things are true here.
clairity 5y ago
rather than worrying specifically about term limits, i think the general solution to political corruption is much more democracy, not less. make it very, very expensive for money to corrupt power, and make it hard to stay in power without maintaining fairness and integrity in the political system. instead of 100 senators, let's have 100 per state [0]. instead of 1 representative per 750,000, let's go back to the original 1 per 30,000, giving us 11,000 representatives. let's have 99 supreme court justices, rather than 9. let's elect all the cabinet positions directly and separately. instead of multi-year terms, let's vote every single year for each representative office, and make election day a mandatory-paid holiday for everyone (to give folks time to research and consider their votes). let's convert many more administrative positions to elected offices. repeal citizen's united, which flooded political campaigns with unlimited amounts of corporate money (giving the wealthy even more disproportionate voice on top of their already disproportionate voice). it's be messy at times, but we don't get good civics and good governance without the people being given more time and space to think about governance in depth. [0]: alternatively, we could divide up states into smaller entities, which would be even better for decentralizing power (and limiting corruption), but that's much harder to do.
- jvalencia 5y ago
  While I rather like this idea, there's something to the fact that we need a check/balance. What you don't want is to have a mob make bad policy, which I think is what would happen in this case. This is precisely why individual states can stand up to the federal government -- people in California could make policies that devastate Maryland, for example. Not because they want to, but because they lack context --- even reasonable authority.
  - clairity 5y ago
    that scenario is unlikely in the proposed scenario, since the powers of the federal government is limited insofar as targeting like that is expressly prohibited. indirect targeting (crafting the specifics of a bill to exclude all but the target) is more prevalent amongst a smaller number of insiders working in dark corners of legislation. having many more people involved, and a more democratically-involved populace, provides sunshine on dubious shit like that.
bbulkow 5y ago
California state offices have term limits, i voted for them, and they are terrible. No one can make a living as a legislator, so we have beginners and they are getting steam rolled by lobbyists. There is now a revolving path of moving from one office to the next to make a living. It is crazy.
- bumby 5y ago
  I think many people don’t think “politician” should be a career option. However, there are some states that don’t pay their legislators at all and that comes with its own problems.
tacocataco 5y ago
How about a electoral system that isn't First Past the Post? Give the voters the ability to pick more than two options.

Yeah what happens is because we have no term limits these Senators stay in office for 100 years and amass huge amounts of insider info, its an incredibly debased system at this point.

syki 5y ago

What does one have to do with the other? Do you have valid reasons for thinking corruption of Senators or Representatives would be less with term limits? I think the level of corruption would not change with term limits and there are some negatives with term limits. I don't see how it would help.

cmiles74 5y ago
With limits on how long they can hold the office, there will be a much shorter time span in which they can collect and act on inside information. There will also be a much shorter time span in which they can form relationships with these companies that could lead to the collection of inside information. In my opinion it's not a solution but it is another way to limit the amount of this kind of trading.
- syki 5y ago
  Yes, it might limit this type of trading but the corruption will just be another type.
nescioquid 5y ago
Pelosi has been in congress since the 80s. I do not think congress-critters will support higher ethical standards that prohibit them from profiting off of insider information if they think that means putting themselves in a straight-jacket for the rest of their lives. The ability to profit off insider information is probably a reason some of our congress-critters stay in office rather than retiring and pursuing goals elsewhere. Through the 80s and 90s, I recall politicians and talking heads using the phrase "...even the appearance of impropriety". I'm tempted to conclude there's something telling about the way this quaint phrase seems to have disappeared. EDIT: not saying term limits are the answer, just that I can see the relationship suggested.
- syki 5y ago
  My contention is that we have very corrupt politicians leading the country. That corruption will not go away with the imposition of term limits. It's a bad response to the problem of corruption. I don't know what would solve the problem but strongly feel term limits is not the solution. I know you aren't saying that term limits are the answer; I'm clarifying my position. I do agree that politicians aren't even trying to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Their response seems to be that in the absence of absolute proof of impropriety then any appearance of it is ok.
  - felistoria 5y ago
    The solution is the require everyone that holds high office to put all their investments in a blind trust when they take the oath of office.
  - asimpletune 5y ago
    Can you elaborate why term limits wouldn’t at least help the problem?
    - syki 5y ago
      A term limited politician will want to secure their future and will go into the job with the knowledge that their time is limited no matter how well they do the job. They’ll seek compensation. The corruption will morph to adapt to the new reality of term limitations but the amount of corruption will not decrease.
      - asimpletune 5y ago
        I see, so basically people are greedy. Yet under that same predicate, wouldn’t the same greedy senator be worse in-perpetuity?
        syki 5y ago
        Neither worse nor better. Just different form of corruption. Term limits is not a good way to fight corruption. The Democrats held the House of Representatives for something like 40 years straight until 1994. You had famous scandals involving entrenched Democratic Congressmen. In 1994 Republicans made term limits a rallying point and they took over the House. Both parties have since jostled for control of the House. But when Republicans had the power they did not impose term limits. It’s just a rallying point and will do nothing to stop corruption. There may be good reasons for term limits but anti-corruption isn’t one of them.
mech422 5y ago
>> Do you have valid reasons for thinking corruption of Senators or Representatives would be less with term limits? I like to think people's terms limit would be reached before they get jaded and cynical.. At the very least, it would reduce the number of years (and hence the total amount of money) lobbyists, etc. would be focused on them. Someone that might think $100K in lobbyist money isn't worth the risk of repercussions, might think $1M (over time) is.
- syki 5y ago
  I believe otherwise. A term limited politician will look for ways to secure their future. I think with term limits we'd end up with even more legislation effectively written by lobbyists. Think Robert Rubin type corruption on an even wider scale than it is today.
  - mech422 5y ago
    I don't think we _could_ end up with more legislation written by lobbyists. It's pretty much 100% already. I think at the worst, we'd be right where we are now... Plus with term limits, at least we'd be rid of them, instead of having them perpetually come back... However, the litmus test would probably be if we actually get term limits.. After all, if they're that corrupt, they won't vote against their own interests.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  Lots of already cynical people go into politics.
  - mech422 5y ago
    True dat

lkrubner 5y ago

Term limits shift power away from the representatives that the public has democratically chosen and instead empowers those bureaucrats who serve in government for 40 or 50 years. Please see: "Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government" by Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels. https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Realists-Elections-Responsive-Government/dp/0691178240/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=democracy+for+realists&qid=1639674451&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Realists-Elections-Responsi... If you want democratically elected representatives to be able to gain power over the machinery of government, then you should advocate for longer terms, without limits. If every Senator was elected for 15 years, we would get better government.

0xdeadbeefbabe 5y ago
40 to 50 years is still greater than 15 though isn't it?
- lkrubner 5y ago
  True, though the ratio of 15 to 45 is better than the ratio of 2 to 45. I'm assuming there is some law of diminishing returns here, that hasn't set in at 2 or 4 years, but has set in by 15 years. In other words, a politician who has to run for office every 2 years is powerless in the face of civil servants, whereas a political who runs for office every 15 years definitely has the time needed to force a showdown with civil servants, whenever civil servants are acting in a rogue manner.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > True, though the ratio of 15 to 45 is better than the ratio of 2 to 45. Senate terms are 6 years, not 2.
    - bumby 5y ago
      Are we still talking about Pelosi? She’s not a Senator

deltarholamda 5y ago

Senators used to be representatives of the States, appointed by the States' legislatures. We should return to that. I'm ambivalent on term limits for House members like Pelosi, though. They are representatives for the people of the States, and as such the people they represent have the right and ability to kick them out, or not. There is also the argument that would you rather have a dog that knows where the bones are buried, or a dog that digs up the whole yard? That said, members of Congress should have severe restrictions on investing for themselves and their immediate family. They either need to police it themselves, or there needs to be some kind of law that covers it. Not that that is going to happen, as we have the ultimate in foxes guarding the henhouse in our government these days, but it would make for a powerful populist position if anybody had the courage to push it.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Senators used to be representatives of the States, appointed by the States' legislatures. We should return to that. That might be tolerable, right after we reduce the powers of the Senate to those of the British House of Lords, which it's original theory of representation is as outdated and inconsistent with representative democracy as, and transfer it's para-executive functions to the House.

chaosharmonic 5y ago

Tbf it's a tangibly more meaningful problem with people who are actually Senators, aren't up for reelection every 2 years, and are in a chamber that's disproportionately weighted toward backwaters by design (and not just as a function of the redistricting process). Pelosi is a Representative, so none of those things are true here.

clairity 5y ago

rather than worrying specifically about term limits, i think the general solution to political corruption is much more democracy, not less. make it very, very expensive for money to corrupt power, and make it hard to stay in power without maintaining fairness and integrity in the political system. instead of 100 senators, let's have 100 per state [0]. instead of 1 representative per 750,000, let's go back to the original 1 per 30,000, giving us 11,000 representatives. let's have 99 supreme court justices, rather than 9. let's elect all the cabinet positions directly and separately. instead of multi-year terms, let's vote every single year for each representative office, and make election day a mandatory-paid holiday for everyone (to give folks time to research and consider their votes). let's convert many more administrative positions to elected offices. repeal citizen's united, which flooded political campaigns with unlimited amounts of corporate money (giving the wealthy even more disproportionate voice on top of their already disproportionate voice). it's be messy at times, but we don't get good civics and good governance without the people being given more time and space to think about governance in depth. [0]: alternatively, we could divide up states into smaller entities, which would be even better for decentralizing power (and limiting corruption), but that's much harder to do.

jvalencia 5y ago
While I rather like this idea, there's something to the fact that we need a check/balance. What you don't want is to have a mob make bad policy, which I think is what would happen in this case. This is precisely why individual states can stand up to the federal government -- people in California could make policies that devastate Maryland, for example. Not because they want to, but because they lack context --- even reasonable authority.
- clairity 5y ago
  that scenario is unlikely in the proposed scenario, since the powers of the federal government is limited insofar as targeting like that is expressly prohibited. indirect targeting (crafting the specifics of a bill to exclude all but the target) is more prevalent amongst a smaller number of insiders working in dark corners of legislation. having many more people involved, and a more democratically-involved populace, provides sunshine on dubious shit like that.

bbulkow 5y ago

California state offices have term limits, i voted for them, and they are terrible. No one can make a living as a legislator, so we have beginners and they are getting steam rolled by lobbyists. There is now a revolving path of moving from one office to the next to make a living. It is crazy.

bumby 5y ago
I think many people don’t think “politician” should be a career option. However, there are some states that don’t pay their legislators at all and that comes with its own problems.

tacocataco 5y ago

How about a electoral system that isn't First Past the Post? Give the voters the ability to pick more than two options.