3 ms·

I'm really torn on #5. My pragmatic side says "hell yes", due to the very human nature law of those that most want to govern are the ones we least want doing i

I'm really torn on #5. My pragmatic side says "hell yes", due to the very human nature law of those that most want to govern are the ones we least want doing it. But... my rights side says all that is doing is taking away my right to vote for whom I want.

mc32 15y ago
I'd change it to disallow consecutive terms --yet as many terms so long as not consecutive
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Then you end up with a situation like they have in Russia: 1999-2000: Prime Minister: Putin 2000-2008: President: Putin 2008-2012: Prime Minister: Putin 2012-2016 (anticipated): President: Putin
  - mc32 15y ago
    That's pretty declarative. You seem pretty sure the situation in the States would be comparable to that in Russia --I think that's a very tenuous stretch. It happens in Russia because they have collusion. Presumably we would have less chance of that happening as other candidates would be free to join in on the political race. There is non-such in Putin's Russia. In Russia, candidacies are controlled (and those two had an "understanding"), so you end up with that. Anyhow, Russia is an exception. Why do you bother bringing up an exception as in this case it would appear irrelevant? What we do have is people who, due to name establishment (incumbency) recognition and or party backing, end up stringing together many terms --this alternative, would at least break that pattern up and give other candidates a chance due to stalled momentum (of the what would have been incumbent). It's seems an obvious difference to me.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      I see no reason it wouldn't happen in the US in areas where term limits might otherwise be needed.
      - mc32 15y ago
        Have you seen it happen where candidates are vetted by the state and only allow those it blesses? I don't see a parallel. I think you're reaching very very far.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        That is as far as I can see, exactly how this government is run...
peteretep 15y ago
Also: we happily assume most professions get more experienced and more effective the longer they've been doing their job. Do we really want to kick out national leadership just as they're getting in to the swing of it? Perhaps, but it's far from clear cut

mc32 15y ago

I'd change it to disallow consecutive terms --yet as many terms so long as not consecutive

burgerbrain 15y ago
Then you end up with a situation like they have in Russia: 1999-2000: Prime Minister: Putin 2000-2008: President: Putin 2008-2012: Prime Minister: Putin 2012-2016 (anticipated): President: Putin
- mc32 15y ago
  That's pretty declarative. You seem pretty sure the situation in the States would be comparable to that in Russia --I think that's a very tenuous stretch. It happens in Russia because they have collusion. Presumably we would have less chance of that happening as other candidates would be free to join in on the political race. There is non-such in Putin's Russia. In Russia, candidacies are controlled (and those two had an "understanding"), so you end up with that. Anyhow, Russia is an exception. Why do you bother bringing up an exception as in this case it would appear irrelevant? What we do have is people who, due to name establishment (incumbency) recognition and or party backing, end up stringing together many terms --this alternative, would at least break that pattern up and give other candidates a chance due to stalled momentum (of the what would have been incumbent). It's seems an obvious difference to me.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    I see no reason it wouldn't happen in the US in areas where term limits might otherwise be needed.
    - mc32 15y ago
      Have you seen it happen where candidates are vetted by the state and only allow those it blesses? I don't see a parallel. I think you're reaching very very far.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        That is as far as I can see, exactly how this government is run...

peteretep 15y ago

Also: we happily assume most professions get more experienced and more effective the longer they've been doing their job. Do we really want to kick out national leadership just as they're getting in to the swing of it? Perhaps, but it's far from clear cut