Christian Mango is 10 years old. In April, his fourth-grade teacher at Canterbury School in Greensboro, North Carolina, gave the class an assignment. Write a ... Read More
I’d thought about this and I came up with term limits instead. Holding office should be limited to 30 years over a lifetime. This should go across specific appointments such as federal reserve and senate.
This prevents people from just staying on forever and accumulating too much power and favors. It also increases the turnover of politicians a lot more without breaking continuity and getting rid of the most qualified politicians.
Not sure what the exact structure would be but I’d also increase the senate term lengths but add a 2 term limit. Governors also 2 term limits, house of reps 7 terms and president 2.
I believe 100% that people in power become more corrupt over time and this fixes that but allows for long careers.
Term limits are stupid, if the person doing the job currently is neither incompetent nor corrupt then there’s no benefit to swapping them out. As long as you can vote them out if and when they stop doing a good job there’s no good reason not to let the same person keep doing the same job til they retire, and if you can’t then your system is already fucked.
Nah. Term limits help prevent the creation and perpetuation of “good old boy” clubs. Quite honestly, it is better to have an inexperienced but well meaning rando, than an expert who makes a habit of lining their pockets with their experience.
Term limits don’t prevent anything, they just make the club slightly larger. The US is proof of this, we have term limits on the vast majority of elected positions, still organizedly corrupt in favor of the ruling class on all fronts.
Term limits are not the solution, they are part of a solution. Term limits alone wouldn’t work without other parts of the political process being reformed. For example, First Past the Post voting makes it much harder for independent candidates to get a fair shot.
The United States needs huge reforms across the board, because much of our processes were built 250 years ago.
Term limits are at best a neutral impact, a rotating cast isn’t any more likely to be competent or less likely to be corrupt. If an official is bad at their job then vote them out, if they aren’t then forcing them out just for the sake of change is directly counterproductive. It’s really just that simple.
No, the problem with keeping people in office, is that they get to establish strong networks of interests. By disrupting this and adding social uncertainty from unfamiliar people, we make it harder for corruption to become baked into society. Corruption is very much a social behavior that relies upon trust - the trust that the other guy won’t snitch on you, if the horsetrading is profitable.
We make it harder to establish that trust among thieves, by swapping people often.
We see it in studying state legislatures who have term limits. (I studied this in graduate school before switching to a different master’s program)
Term limits doesn’t change how much power and money are available. It just changes who controls that power and money (the budget.) If the congressmen lose some of that power via term limits, that power doesn’t go away. It doesn’t go unused. It gets scooped up and used by the lobbyists to get things passed a naive congress.
Worst, you create perverse incentives where congressmen are locked out of running for re-election, so they take their expertise and contacts gained in office and work for the lobbyists that used to lobby them.
No, as good as term limits sound, it’s much, much better to leave it up to the voters to decide who their rep will be. If they want a 40 year veteran or a rookie every two years, that’s their choice to make.
it should be tied to whatever is legally the earliest you can get social security. If the government thinks your at an age that’s reasonable to retire, maybe you should not be making our rules anymore.
We need age limits on politicians.
I’d thought about this and I came up with term limits instead. Holding office should be limited to 30 years over a lifetime. This should go across specific appointments such as federal reserve and senate.
This prevents people from just staying on forever and accumulating too much power and favors. It also increases the turnover of politicians a lot more without breaking continuity and getting rid of the most qualified politicians.
Not sure what the exact structure would be but I’d also increase the senate term lengths but add a 2 term limit. Governors also 2 term limits, house of reps 7 terms and president 2.
I believe 100% that people in power become more corrupt over time and this fixes that but allows for long careers.
And term limits
Term limits are stupid, if the person doing the job currently is neither incompetent nor corrupt then there’s no benefit to swapping them out. As long as you can vote them out if and when they stop doing a good job there’s no good reason not to let the same person keep doing the same job til they retire, and if you can’t then your system is already fucked.
Nah. Term limits help prevent the creation and perpetuation of “good old boy” clubs. Quite honestly, it is better to have an inexperienced but well meaning rando, than an expert who makes a habit of lining their pockets with their experience.
Term limits don’t prevent anything, they just make the club slightly larger. The US is proof of this, we have term limits on the vast majority of elected positions, still organizedly corrupt in favor of the ruling class on all fronts.
Term limits are not the solution, they are part of a solution. Term limits alone wouldn’t work without other parts of the political process being reformed. For example, First Past the Post voting makes it much harder for independent candidates to get a fair shot.
The United States needs huge reforms across the board, because much of our processes were built 250 years ago.
Term limits are at best a neutral impact, a rotating cast isn’t any more likely to be competent or less likely to be corrupt. If an official is bad at their job then vote them out, if they aren’t then forcing them out just for the sake of change is directly counterproductive. It’s really just that simple.
No, the problem with keeping people in office, is that they get to establish strong networks of interests. By disrupting this and adding social uncertainty from unfamiliar people, we make it harder for corruption to become baked into society. Corruption is very much a social behavior that relies upon trust - the trust that the other guy won’t snitch on you, if the horsetrading is profitable.
We make it harder to establish that trust among thieves, by swapping people often.
Term limits do nothing to prevent that, observable reality proves it
The lack of limitations seems to be doing just fine with the supreme Court.
Plenty of elected positions in the US have term limits and none of them are any less corrupt, term limits don’t do shit
Term limits increase the power of lobbyists.
Why do you think so?
We see it in studying state legislatures who have term limits. (I studied this in graduate school before switching to a different master’s program)
Term limits doesn’t change how much power and money are available. It just changes who controls that power and money (the budget.) If the congressmen lose some of that power via term limits, that power doesn’t go away. It doesn’t go unused. It gets scooped up and used by the lobbyists to get things passed a naive congress.
Worst, you create perverse incentives where congressmen are locked out of running for re-election, so they take their expertise and contacts gained in office and work for the lobbyists that used to lobby them.
No, as good as term limits sound, it’s much, much better to leave it up to the voters to decide who their rep will be. If they want a 40 year veteran or a rookie every two years, that’s their choice to make.
And minimal education requirements
Age isn’t a safe metric, some people’s brains go to shit at 50, some are still fully functional at 90. Just test them.
it should be tied to whatever is legally the earliest you can get social security. If the government thinks your at an age that’s reasonable to retire, maybe you should not be making our rules anymore.
i would settle for televized cognitive assessments, fail and your forciboy retired