- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- news_us@lemmy.link
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- news_us@lemmy.link
Has the appearance of a transient ischemic attack. But apparently “he’s fine”
Has the appearance of a transient ischemic attack. But apparently “he’s fine”
Term limits empower lobbyists and career staffers and encourage legislators to give less of a shit about their constituents. I know “career politician” is often considered a dirty word, but having competent, knowledgeable elected officials is a good thing.
They are already openly corrupt. Term limits would result in younger candidates in touch with this century. Lobbyists would also have to bribe new people. It might also break up the ridiculous 100% party voting.
Not to mention help with our Supreme Court problems. Randomly giving appointments that last decades to whoever is president in at the time is insane.
I really don’t think we have that many competent elected officials anyway.
Yes, eliminating gerrymandering and citizens united would be more effective, but I wouldn’t kick term limits out of bed.
We have term limits in Florida. They have done nothing to solve any problems, and arguably have made the quality of our officials worse, while giving much more power to lobbyists.
deleted by creator
None of that has happened in the states that have term limits. If you think Republicans, no matter how long they have been in office, are going to start putting anyone other than Federalist Society drones on the courts, I’m not sure I can have a good faith argument with you.
Term limits are as likely as ranked-choice voting, which would also solve a lot of problems but won’t be passed in a significant way in my lifetime
They actually just passed ranked choice voting in my city.
It does seem crazy to have a system where 49% of people preferred the other guy, but he lost so those people now get zero representation.
Yes cuz that’s worked so well in places that already have them…
No they’d hand pick them, run them on utter lies that they can’t be challenged, then throw them out when the public wises up. You seriously underestimate how far the power dynamic can swing.
On the other hand, the current system of “representatives spend one full year campaigning and one full year fundraising for their party, so any legislation they sponsor in their two-year term is already written by lobbyists” isn’t working out so hot either.
Throw in a law restricting campaigning more than three months before an election and a law limiting campaigns to only spending equally-dispersed public funds, and you might start to see some improvement. Oh, and reverse Citizen’s United and ban Super PACs while you’re at it. And can we all get a free unicorn too?
yeah, because the current batch of politicians are sooooo concerned with their constituents.
On the other hand, lets ignore the fact that the vast majority of senators (and the president, and most presidential canidates,) are so “experienced” that the majority of their experience predates… the internet. Never mind social media or anything resembling the modern world we find our selves in.
A mandatory retirement age is a different suggestion than term limits.
Yep. Why is 65 not a forced retirement for politicians, when it is used in many less important industries?
There is definitely reasonable legislation that can have the best of both worlds here. That’s a poor argument against them
How so?
We have about 25 years worth of experiments with it in various states, so it’s been well studied. Legislating is a skill that needs to be developed, just like anything else, and a bunch of term-limited newbies have no incentive to do anything except get ready for the next thing, which only enhances the possiblity of corruption.