3 ms·
Not sure about that solution, but we could elect representation that does the right thing(s), and not just the thing(s) that get them reelected.
by chiefalchemist 3y ago
Not sure about that solution, but we could elect representation that does the right thing(s), and not just the thing(s) that get them reelected.
- jcims 3y agoThat’s not how selection works unfortunately.
- jjtheblunt 3y agoI don’t know the answer to this question, but would removing the ability to be reelected cause a change in the equilibrium?
- Retric 3y agoNo, if anything it would likely make things worse as people try to maximize their out of office job the same way SEC officials end up at big banks. The advantage of “professional” politicians is they can be held accountable. Unfortunately, the general public rarely actually does so.
- jbm 3y agoWe could choose, for instance, to restrict people to single terms. I don't think long term exposure to power is actually that helpful, and it creates brand names and political careers, none of which really seems to be that helpful. I think restricting the presidency to 2 terms is actually quite positive, and I wish we had a similar system in Canada (although generally it works out to be more or less the same)
- mech422 3y agoSingle terms might be too short - but I'd be happy with anything <= a 20 year limit...2 terms (same as president), 3 terms, or even 4 terms.. I also think term limits are the first step towards getting anything else fixed. Without term limits, pols are always going to vote to get re-elected/more lobbying money instead of improving things.
- blitzar 3y ago> we elect representation that does the right thing(s), and not just the thing(s) that get them reelected Every candidate who has stood up and said they will do the right thing (tm) was not elected. The problem is the "we", the elected representation give people exactly what they want, and in a democracy what they (collectively) deserve.