lofhay

All career politicians have a conflict of interest, i.e. tha i which benefits themselves vs. that which benefits the populace. For example, they nearly always lean towards anything which will (a) keep them in power, (b) increase their power. Until we get term limits, we can only expect this scenario to continue, and the result will be a steady progression toward economic and political disaster.

The_Jazz

Really? Because California has term limits, and they're a bright shining example of economic and political disaster at the moment. That tells me that term limits is no "magic bullet" to fix all of our ills or to even check the slide towards disaster, if that's even what's going on.

Tennessee also has term limits, but it hasn't really put an end to the "good ole boy network" since family members are often elected or people rotating between positions.

I guess I really have no idea what you want to discuss or if you just want to rant. If its the former, please elaborate. If its the latter, it's probably better off as a blog post.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

We do have term limits, they're called elections. If you feel the person representing you is corrupt, every once in a while you get the opportunity not only to vote for someone else but to even run yourself.

lofhay

Mabe term limits is not the answer by itself, but I don' think we stand a chance of improving the system without limits.

Mojo_PeiPei

Politicians suck, I think everyone realizes that.

But I'm curious, is the argument here that career politicians pander, so they'll stay in power?

On the flip, term limits would somehow cure this because limited terms would produce focused politicians who have no reason to pander thus they are magically more honest and convicted in a good way?

The reality is politicians will always do what benefits them, regardless on any term limit or not. Hell I think limits might make things worse, if there is no real accountability except for perhaps in the case of criminal actions, people could be a whole lot cavalier. Who knows though, it might just ultimately be refreshing to have politicians who actually acted and spoke their mind.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

lofhay

Without the kind of term limits which make it impossible for anyone to make a career out of politics, I am left with having to choose between career politicians and trying to figure out what is the lesser of the evils. It seems to me that limiting any political aspirant to not more than say eight years in total political office (not just one office)would go a long way to removing the conflict of interest and would encourage non-career people to offer their service. Am I being too naive?

loquitur

to my mind term limits are undemocratic. Why should the public be deprived of being represented by whoever the hell they want? If they want to be represented by a convicted felon (and some of them do), they'll get the government they deserve.

If you don't like the representation you have, vote the bastards out at the next election. I can tell you that the NY state legislature is so bad, so dysfunctional, that I have half a mind to just vote for nonincumbents on principle.

roachboy

the american system is not democratic enough---elections happen every 2/4 years and that's it. between elections, short of being convicted or impeached, a representative can do pretty much whatever.

this seemed to me a particular Problem during the bush period. no mechanism to get rid of a president, no matter how incompetent, no possibility of anything like a vote of no confidence....

i don't see term limits as a significant question.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

How about a mechanism for a vote of no confidence?

lofhay

The writers of our constitution overlooked the importance of term limits, but Congress, in later years, saw fit to place limits on the term of office for the President. I know only some of the reasons they may have done this, but, if it was needed for the office of President, why not for Senators and Congressmen also?

Cynthetiq

rb: every 2/4 years provides a stability and foundation. should one be constantly campaigning? how will one learn the ins and outs of the issues? or should they just vote on gut feeling?

I don't believe that they overlooked the importance. Remember they were concerned that someone would be "for life."

The very foundation of their ideas of being able to elect an individual and then elect a different individual at appropriate times is the most important of fundamental republic voting. It is the importance of the balance that the people get to excercise the direct vote for senators and representatives, as there isn't an electoral college to assist in balancing out the representation.

There was a person who logged onto here estimating that 435 representatives wasn't a good representation for the population. I didn't agree with him much, but I did get his points and still am trying to understand more about that. While the framers didn't think we'd have cities of > 2 million people, I do think they understood the ideas of term limits.

I'm in agreement with will, we have term limits, you better do your best each and every term or you'll be voted out of office. If the public continues to vote for you, they deserve the government that they voted into office.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

loquitur

Roachboy, I disagree with your unspoken assumption that democracy requires recall. Certain kinds of democratic systems, sure, but you can't just define things away like that.

lofhay

I repeat: if our only choice at election time is between this career politician or that career politician, what is the good of voting? If I don't trust any of them, my vote is worthless. Is such a system the best we can do?

Master_Shake

Yes, it's the best we can do. You can blame politicians all you want but they only get re-elected because they pander to the people who vote for them. It's not just the politicians who suck, the people suck.

__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.

lofhay

It does boil down to the lack of concern of the people, but I am not willing to give up trying to inform them. Will you help?

Cynthetiq

so the problem then isn't with term limits but the pool of people who are willing to be politicians.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

lofhay

If we changed the constitution so as to make it impossible for anyone to make a career out of politics, wouldn't this eliminate most of the conflict of interest which comes from the urge to get re-elected? It is this kind of term limit which I advocate. Without it, the voting public feels helpless.

Cynthetiq

The voting public feels helpless? When the voting public actually is more than the group that isn't apathetic, I'd believe you.

If NO ONE wishes to run for office, then what? What happens then?

As I stated before the framers were well aware of the idea of "for life" since they were under the tyranny of King George. There was no choice of election. They allowed in this experiment the ability to not have someone hold office for their lifetime or the constituents lifetime.

So again, the issue isn't about term limits, it's about creating the desire for other people to run for public office. Why didn't you run for public office? Jefferson felt it was his duty to run for public office, why wouldn't you take your turn? What's stopping you from running against a career politician?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Halx

That sounds like we would have the country run like the local ice cream shop - every time you go, there's an entirely different staff. It'll be impossible for someone to master their craft and a good thing would end and be replaced by a poor thing. No elders around to teach the newbies.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

loquitur

Precisely. What you have to go through these days to get elected and hold office eliminates a huge number of good qualified people who simply don't want or need the abuse. So who's left? People with huge egos and no self-respect, by and large.

Willravel

I dunno about this one. If I was about 50-60% smarter and a little older, I'd probably want to run for some position that's occupied by someone either corrupt or incompetent. I wouldn't be able to without either being independently wealthy or pandering to sources of revenue. People that are independently wealthy can insulate themselves from the problems that may hit people like you or I more directly. Pandering? It's what people that are willing to compromise their vision do. If you don't believe me, google "Goldman Sachs" and "Obama".

If I were running for mayor or state legislature or governor, I'd never, ever, ever compromise to get funds. It's not in me, I'm too stubborn and too skeptical. If I were supremely lucky, some very generous people that agree with me completely could help to bankroll me, but really most large contributions come from places with agendas.

The problem isn't term limits but the unbelievable difficulty or luck required to become a politician without compromising your beliefs. People aren't ignorant to this, so many don't even bother trying.

loquitur

Will, how do you propose to get elected without raising money? And how do you propose to raise enough (and regularly, because these things are expensive)? And then once you're in office, how do you propose to meet with people who want to persuade you, especially in areas you don't know much about? Pandering is unavoidable, unless you think your purity is more important than being totally honest, in which case you won't get elected.

Willravel

Like I said, either you pander, you're independently wealthy, or you're really lucky. Most politicians pander.
Not completely. In all the years I've been following his career, I've never once seen Dennis Kucinich pander. If he's said he was in support of something, he's in support of it because he believes in it. That kind of politicians is one of the rare ones that has a truly consistent platform across the board. Ron Paul, though I don't necessarily agree with him all the time, is similar.
What? You think it's dishonest not to pander? I must be misunderstanding you.

Anyway, my point was that the fact that pandering is almost the only way to get elected probably turns off a lot of very smart and capable people.