5 ms·

I wonder if strict and short term limits would inhibit the ability (for any entity) to condition the masses.

LegitShady 4y ago
unfortunately political parties are machines to continue influence and power. It would change how influence was applied, but the team sport that is politics would continue with different spokepeople in office and the same people running the machinery of party in the back.
- macintux 4y ago
  I expect lobbyists would be winners if short term limits were imposed. Inexperienced legislators would tend to rely extensively on party apparatus and lobbyists.
  - junofan 4y ago
    Interesting, I would expect the opposite: tenured legislators rely more on lobbyists and party apparatus. You don’t really see increasing independence over time; rather, wayward legislators get primaried by the party.
    - LegitShady 4y ago
      the party doesn't necessarily lose any power in this case, so their ability to control elections by choosing who runs might be undiminished.
    - macintux 4y ago
      My suspicion is that the bills and amendments the legislature debates, and their direct and indirect impacts, are so complex that a young legislator will necessarily need help navigating. So experienced staff, parties, and lobbyists will necessarily be strong influences. A veteran lawmaker has better intuitions, and knows who both inside and outside the system they can trust for advice.
jimbob45 4y ago
For which office are you suggesting shorter term limits?
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  none in particular, i'm just curious what the partial differential of corruption with respect to terms is, very vaguely said.
Analemma_ 4y ago
> I wonder if strict and short term limits would inhibit the ability (for any entity) to condition the masses. No, it would do exactly the opposite. Short term limits mean you perpetually have a revolving door of inexperienced and naive legislators who are much more prone to a) manipulation by experienced and cut-throat lobbyists and b) grabbing everything they can for their district with no regard for long-term sustainability, because they'll be gone before they can see any consequences. I'm not picking on you in particular because I see this all over the place, but it really makes me crazy when people default to their gut emotions and desire to punish, and so come up with non-solutions like "shorter term limits!" which actually make the problem so much worse.
- GreedClarifies 4y ago
  "which actually make the problem so much worse" I'm sorry you haven't made that case at all. All you have done is listed the costs of the "term limits" side, you haven't listed any of the benefits. A couple off of the top of my head: 1. Seats would be up for effective election more often allowing for democracy to perhaps function more effectively. Perhaps there would be more of a market of ideas instead of cults of personality. 2. Less time for legislators to establish "ties" (corruption) with regulators, business leaders, party leaders, and others in power.
- jen20 4y ago
  As opposed to the competent legislators there today? I don’t think they can really be much worse in many countries.
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  I’m not claiming it would help; I’m asking if it would help.
- lostmsu 4y ago
  Not sure. Power corrupts, but it is not doing it instantly. Freshmen politicians might be less touched.
- than3 4y ago
  Its a balanced scale, any good is equally weighed by the bad. Except the larger representative lobbyists often tip the scale towards bad more often than not.
yamtaddle 4y ago
1) This assumes that long-serving politicians are a major driver of this activity. Doesn't seem right to me, but hey, maybe I'm wrong. 2) The main downside to term limits is that it tends to put more power into the hands of actors who are not subject to elections—professional bureaucrats, lobbyists, interest groups, and party machines, basically. My perception is that those latter three groups, especially, are behind a lot of this kind of thing—if true, term limits would make things worse, not better.
- BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
  Does this assumption still hold if the term limits are somewhat generous? For instance, 18 years (3 senate terms or 9 house terms)? Almost all of the evidence detracting from legislative term limits centers around attempts to allow only 1-2 terms. But there’s very little about medium to longer term restrictions.
FpUser 4y ago
Would be taken over by big corporations. Already happening to a good degree
hedora 4y ago
The US used to have media ownership rules for this purpose. On balance, they worked well until they were repealed (at each step, the politicians responsible for repealing them had ties to the companies that directly benefited).
- PrimeMcFly 4y ago
  I feel like Reagan almost single handled did more to destroy the US than any other individual. All of reaganomics while allowing Fox News to spread lies and propaganda to rile peopel up.
  - jjtheblunt 4y ago
    How old were you then? (i'm curious, because i was small, and the subset of news i saw was more focused on the strategy of outspending the soviet union, but that's at that time in the news, i mean.)
    - PrimeMcFly 4y ago
      I wasn't old enough to pay attention to politics, and wasn't in the US at that time. I've just read about it a few times. Seem I was wrong though, glad I just looked it up. Here's a Snopes article debunking it: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ronald-reagan-fairness-doctrine/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ronald-reagan-fairness-doc...
hayst4ck 4y ago
Term limits seem like the type of thing that would not necessarily create positive or negative results, but modulate the system. I think it is a thing that feels right to a lot of people, but if you ask "What will term limits achieve, and what are possible unintended consequences of term limits?" I think most proponents of it would have a very hard time coming up with a satisfying answer. I would prefer age limits before term limits. I think the real question to ask is: "If corruption were against the law, would people still want term limits?" or "Will term limits reduce corruption?" I think the answer is no and I think it is obviously no for the latter (revolving door).
HybridCurve 4y ago
No. Term limits have nothing to do with the overall strategies being used by subversive non-government organizations. They function in the background and direct the party to steer policy in their favor. All of the deep research required to apply stress to the weak points of an institution is done at NGOs and the execution plan is essentially handed over to the party members and officials.
drewcoo 4y ago
If you want to address the problems of politicians . . . find a way to: 1. pay them all FU money so they're not corruptible (I don't care how much. Maybe a trust fund for life.) 2. harshly, legally prohibit them from making any money from ever having been in office (the FU money is a cushion here) And then . . . why limit their terms? If you have eliminated corruption, at least ostensibly, why limit terms?

unfortunately political parties are machines to continue influence and power. It would change how influence was applied, but the team sport that is politics would continue with different spokepeople in office and the same people running the machinery of party in the back.

macintux 4y ago
I expect lobbyists would be winners if short term limits were imposed. Inexperienced legislators would tend to rely extensively on party apparatus and lobbyists.
- junofan 4y ago
  Interesting, I would expect the opposite: tenured legislators rely more on lobbyists and party apparatus. You don’t really see increasing independence over time; rather, wayward legislators get primaried by the party.
  - LegitShady 4y ago
    the party doesn't necessarily lose any power in this case, so their ability to control elections by choosing who runs might be undiminished.
  - macintux 4y ago
    My suspicion is that the bills and amendments the legislature debates, and their direct and indirect impacts, are so complex that a young legislator will necessarily need help navigating. So experienced staff, parties, and lobbyists will necessarily be strong influences. A veteran lawmaker has better intuitions, and knows who both inside and outside the system they can trust for advice.

jimbob45 4y ago

For which office are you suggesting shorter term limits?

jjtheblunt 4y ago
none in particular, i'm just curious what the partial differential of corruption with respect to terms is, very vaguely said.

Analemma_ 4y ago

> I wonder if strict and short term limits would inhibit the ability (for any entity) to condition the masses. No, it would do exactly the opposite. Short term limits mean you perpetually have a revolving door of inexperienced and naive legislators who are much more prone to a) manipulation by experienced and cut-throat lobbyists and b) grabbing everything they can for their district with no regard for long-term sustainability, because they'll be gone before they can see any consequences. I'm not picking on you in particular because I see this all over the place, but it really makes me crazy when people default to their gut emotions and desire to punish, and so come up with non-solutions like "shorter term limits!" which actually make the problem so much worse.

GreedClarifies 4y ago
"which actually make the problem so much worse" I'm sorry you haven't made that case at all. All you have done is listed the costs of the "term limits" side, you haven't listed any of the benefits. A couple off of the top of my head: 1. Seats would be up for effective election more often allowing for democracy to perhaps function more effectively. Perhaps there would be more of a market of ideas instead of cults of personality. 2. Less time for legislators to establish "ties" (corruption) with regulators, business leaders, party leaders, and others in power.
jen20 4y ago
As opposed to the competent legislators there today? I don’t think they can really be much worse in many countries.
jjtheblunt 4y ago
I’m not claiming it would help; I’m asking if it would help.
lostmsu 4y ago
Not sure. Power corrupts, but it is not doing it instantly. Freshmen politicians might be less touched.
than3 4y ago
Its a balanced scale, any good is equally weighed by the bad. Except the larger representative lobbyists often tip the scale towards bad more often than not.

yamtaddle 4y ago

1) This assumes that long-serving politicians are a major driver of this activity. Doesn't seem right to me, but hey, maybe I'm wrong. 2) The main downside to term limits is that it tends to put more power into the hands of actors who are not subject to elections—professional bureaucrats, lobbyists, interest groups, and party machines, basically. My perception is that those latter three groups, especially, are behind a lot of this kind of thing—if true, term limits would make things worse, not better.

BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
Does this assumption still hold if the term limits are somewhat generous? For instance, 18 years (3 senate terms or 9 house terms)? Almost all of the evidence detracting from legislative term limits centers around attempts to allow only 1-2 terms. But there’s very little about medium to longer term restrictions.

FpUser 4y ago

Would be taken over by big corporations. Already happening to a good degree

hedora 4y ago

The US used to have media ownership rules for this purpose. On balance, they worked well until they were repealed (at each step, the politicians responsible for repealing them had ties to the companies that directly benefited).

PrimeMcFly 4y ago
I feel like Reagan almost single handled did more to destroy the US than any other individual. All of reaganomics while allowing Fox News to spread lies and propaganda to rile peopel up.
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  How old were you then? (i'm curious, because i was small, and the subset of news i saw was more focused on the strategy of outspending the soviet union, but that's at that time in the news, i mean.)
  - PrimeMcFly 4y ago
    I wasn't old enough to pay attention to politics, and wasn't in the US at that time. I've just read about it a few times. Seem I was wrong though, glad I just looked it up. Here's a Snopes article debunking it: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ronald-reagan-fairness-doctrine/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ronald-reagan-fairness-doc...

hayst4ck 4y ago

Term limits seem like the type of thing that would not necessarily create positive or negative results, but modulate the system. I think it is a thing that feels right to a lot of people, but if you ask "What will term limits achieve, and what are possible unintended consequences of term limits?" I think most proponents of it would have a very hard time coming up with a satisfying answer. I would prefer age limits before term limits. I think the real question to ask is: "If corruption were against the law, would people still want term limits?" or "Will term limits reduce corruption?" I think the answer is no and I think it is obviously no for the latter (revolving door).

HybridCurve 4y ago

No. Term limits have nothing to do with the overall strategies being used by subversive non-government organizations. They function in the background and direct the party to steer policy in their favor. All of the deep research required to apply stress to the weak points of an institution is done at NGOs and the execution plan is essentially handed over to the party members and officials.

drewcoo 4y ago

If you want to address the problems of politicians . . . find a way to: 1. pay them all FU money so they're not corruptible (I don't care how much. Maybe a trust fund for life.) 2. harshly, legally prohibit them from making any money from ever having been in office (the FU money is a cushion here) And then . . . why limit their terms? If you have eliminated corruption, at least ostensibly, why limit terms?