|
"Hey I know the people you represent voted for you but you're like wicked old soooooo..." Mandatory retirement is dumb in a system where someone's term lasts as long as people vote for them. This isn't like an office where Old Man Smithers will just keep showing up and there's kinda nothing to be done about it if there aren't retirement ages and all.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
At the very least, I think term limits are a worthwhile discussion. It gives them less time to get entrenched, and forces elections to focus more on policies rather than "he's been our senator for 50 years so it's like voting against God." It's the same reason we term-limit presidents. Can you imagine how hard it was to beat FDR on term 4? What about 5 or 6? You'd have had two whole generations growing up with him, losing a vital experience of democracy in changing the guard. For that matter, I'd be perfectly fine with term limits on the SCOTUS to make it more responsive to the demands of an evolving democracy. I saw a proposal here for rotating one-time 18-year terms that I liked, timed such that every president would get two nominations. Premature vacancies could be filled by temporary candidates until the dead/retired person's term was up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:At the very least, I think term limits are a worthwhile discussion. It gives them less time to get entrenched, and forces elections to focus more on policies rather than "he's been our senator for 50 years so it's like voting against God." It's the same reason we term-limit presidents. Can you imagine how hard it was to beat FDR on term 4? What about 5 or 6? You'd have had two whole generations growing up with him, losing a vital experience of democracy in changing the guard. Term limits also causes a loss of institutional memory and a constant stream of new legislators who don't know how to write bills or how the arcane system works. The result will be to hand more power to industry lobbyists who will be happy to help the newbies write bills and guide them through the process. You have to balance the good with the bad. Term limits would do some good and a lot of bad and overall are a bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
I don't think bringing a candidate's age or health is an inherently bad thing because with a death in the office, you could be faced with the possibility that your Senator, Congressman, or whatever could be appointed by a Governor and could serve the entire rest of the term without ever having been elected. But it is always going to be tricky for challengers to bring it up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Term limits also causes a loss of institutional memory and a constant stream of new legislators who don't know how to write bills or how the arcane system works. The result will be to hand more power to industry lobbyists who will be happy to help the newbies write bills and guide them through the process. This is especially true in the Senate where the lack of written rules creates a system based on norms and precedent where senior Senators play a critical role in making sure the Senate functions effectively. Or at least did, at one time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Term limits also causes a loss of institutional memory and a constant stream of new legislators who don't know how to write bills or how the arcane system works. The result will be to hand more power to industry lobbyists who will be happy to help the newbies write bills and guide them through the process. The idea that the Republic will collapse or that lobbyists will somehow seize power (as if they haven't) because a Senator can only be in office for 20 years instead of 40 is kind of dumb even on its face. LBJ had hardly half that and his experience at Senatorial business is pretty much legendary. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:At the very least, I think term limits are a worthwhile discussion. It gives them less time to get entrenched, and forces elections to focus more on policies rather than "he's been our senator for 50 years so it's like voting against God." It's the same reason we term-limit presidents. Can you imagine how hard it was to beat FDR on term 4? What about 5 or 6? You'd have had two whole generations growing up with him, losing a vital experience of democracy in changing the guard. I have trouble buying the value of term limits when your example is built around limiting how long one of our best Presidents could have been in office. The country wouldn't have elected George W. Bush to a third term even if he had been eligible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Term limits also causes a loss of institutional memory and a constant stream of new legislators who don't know how to write bills or how the arcane system works. The result will be to hand more power to industry lobbyists who will be happy to help the newbies write bills and guide them through the process. That's a problem with the system. Maybe we should have clearly delineated senate rules. And you act as though lobbyists having the bills they wrote passed doesn't already happen. The PATRIOT act was thousands of pages that popped into existence mere weeks after 9/11. Someone had that waiting in the wings for years, I bet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:Can you imagine how hard it was to beat FDR on term 4? What about 5 or 6? But that was because lots and lots of people were voting for him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Term limits also causes a loss of institutional memory and a constant stream of new legislators who don't know how to write bills or how the arcane system works. The result will be to hand more power to industry lobbyists who will be happy to help the newbies write bills and guide them through the process. Legislative drafting is pretty much farmed out as it is, it's got very little to do with actual representatives as far as I know. I'm opposed to term limits on democratic principles but I think that the arcane system/institutional memory point is the weakest argument against them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:That's a problem with the system. Maybe we should have clearly delineated senate rules. But term limits don't solve either problem, they make both of them worse. Additionally, it's an infringement on voters' rights to vote for their preferred candidate. If you're going to limit that choice you need a pretty compelling reason. The Warszawa posted:Legislative drafting is pretty much farmed out as it is, it's got very little to do with actual representatives as far as I know. I agree it's weak, but they seem to be the primary arguments in favor of term limits. My purpose in putting it forth is to show it doesn't solve the problems they want to solve and in fact aggravates them. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:But term limits don't solve either problem, they make both of them worse. Additionally, it's an infringement on voters' rights to vote for their preferred candidate. If you're going to limit that choice you need a pretty compelling reason. Term limits don't infringe on voters rights in any significant way. They're a constitutional element, and the courts have never batted an eye at the concept. Voters have inherent limitations in any system - candidates must be eligible for the office. quote:I agree it's weak, but they seem to be the primary arguments in favor of term limits. My purpose in putting it forth is to show it doesn't solve the problems they want to solve and in fact aggravates them. The idea of an "experienced legislator" is bunk in the first place. It doesn't take 20 years to learn how to write a bill. Seniority power within the system is very real, which is why it's smart for individual states to re-elect their officials, but that's a systemic flaw. Term limits are an important part of any system, because they prevent corruption and broaden the ownership of power. As for lobbyist influence: They have far more influence in a veteran legislator who has been bought and sold for 20 years, rather than an idealistic neophyte who is just getting their bearings. Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Lautenberg being reelected in 2008 wasn't one of the high points for the state's politics; he basically refused to campaign because he knew that between residual name value and Obama that he would get over the line, and by the general election he did not look entirely all there in the handful of events he did do (he'd only agree to one televised debate, on the Saturday night before the election, only to be aired on public television, and he stumbled badly repeatedly in both that and the radio debate). The morbidly amusing part of the whole Lautenberg attempted forced retirement angle was that he originally won the seat in a minor upset in 1982 by going hard negative on Millicent Fenwick's age.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The idea of an "experienced legislator" is bunk in the first place. It doesn't take 20 years to learn how to write a bill. Seniority power within the system is very real, which is why it's smart for individual states to re-elect their officials, but that's a systemic flaw. Term limits are an important part of any system, because they prevent corruption and broaden the ownership of power. As for lobbyist influence: They have far more influence in a veteran legislator who has been bought and sold for 20 years, rather than an idealistic neophyte who is just getting their bearings. Let's look at how states that have enacted term limits on their legislatures have fared: quote:It is clear that term limits have brought many changes to the legislatures where they are in effect. Term limited legislatures report more general chaos, a decline in civility, reduced influence of legislative leaders and committees, and in some states, a shift in power relationships. However, the bottom line is that legislatures are resilient and highly adaptive institutions, and they continue to function efficiently under term limits. Many of the problems experienced by term limited legislatures are the same problems faced by all legislatures; term limits simply tend to amplify and accelerate them. As term limits continue to tighten their hold, and as veteran members continue to cycle out, the term limited legislatures will continue to evolve. As they do, they will provide valuable ideas that all legislatures, term limited or not, can adopt to improve their institutions Conclusion seems to be that term limits don't actually solve any problems, they just make current problems worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Let's look at how states that have enacted term limits on their legislatures have fared: What would be interesting to see is how this changes over time. It seems to me that term limits of two consecutive terms in the House of Representatives (4 years) would have very different effects compared to two consecutive terms in the Senate (12 years). I'd like to add that I don't find the "freedom to elect" argument a strong one against term limits, given the advantages that incumbency provides in subsequent elections.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Let's look at how states that have enacted term limits on their legislatures have fared: Conclusion seems to be that term limits don't actually solve any problems, they just make current problems worse. Purple states have more divisive politics than deep red/blue states, news at eleven.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Legislative drafting is pretty much farmed out as it is, it's got very little to do with actual representatives as far as I know. This is mostly incorrect (unless you meant "by the representative themself" as opposed to their office). I have written legislative text (some of which might even get enacted someday) - usually legislative counsel (non partisan career employees) will clean up language, but the cleaner the original draft is, the better job Leg can do, meaning that institutional experience (I.e. legislators who know what's achievable and how to ask for what they want, as well as staff who can rely on it as a long term job and aren't necessarily going to be constantly looking for their 12th year exit option and therefore can develop the necessary drafting expertise and issue expertise) matters. Legislator turnover also causes increased staff turnover and leads to an even worse revolving door effect. Basically, the longer an office has been established, the better it will be at dealing with the issues it's interested in, meaning it will be less reliant on information from interest groups. Term limits force reliance on external information because internal issue expertise is lacking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The idea that the Republic will collapse or that lobbyists will somehow seize power (as if they haven't) because a Senator can only be in office for 20 years instead of 40 is kind of dumb even on its face. LBJ had hardly half that and his experience at Senatorial business is pretty much legendary. Hmm, yes, let's cite artificially high numbers for our example rather than the one or two terms more commonly seen in the states. That's the ticket!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
What do you all think the average term of service is? Because I was surprised at the numbers when I looked them up: I have mixed feelings about longterm incumbents: Generally (as in California) they get a pass by the state parties, which know they'll save money, time and effort in a reelection, whether the incumbents deserve it or not. On the other hand, the Dems in particular seem to have spurned older, more liberal candidates in favor of younger neoliberals like Booker, and I don't think that serves the party (nor the country) well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:What do you all think the average term of service is? Because I was surprised at the numbers when I looked them up: The Dems who are supporting the younger neo-liberals are usually Dem primary voters though. The DNC / DSCC always supports incumbents, but the institutional support in the last year or so for open Senate seats has been for "older" and more liberal candidates, such as Braley, Warren, or Markey. This isn't always the case, but I think the majority of the candidates you have issues with are the result of Democratic primary voters rather than insiders blackballing Rush Holt, Frank Pallone, or Christy Vilsack. I'm not sure how to change that situation, because primary voters tend to not be low-info voters compared to the population at large and extended primary campaigns on the Dem side tend to revolve around personalities and identities rather than ideological struggles except in more extreme cases like Lieberman.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Rothenberg has changed the rating of the Michigan governor's race from tossup/tilt Republican to pure tossup. http://blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/ratings-change-michigan-governor/ People are fed up with the governor making no effort to get the state legislature back to Lansing to finish with the Medicaid expansion. he's said some lukewarm words about how disappointed he is, but hasn't done anything else about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:With Alzheimer's affecting an increasing chunk of the population mental acuity tests at the very least will be necessary. Good luck getting boomers to vote fire anything that might possibly weaken their influence though. Well, that and it's basically a literacy test for old people instead of black people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Kalman posted:This is mostly incorrect (unless you meant "by the representative themself" as opposed to their office). I have written legislative text (some of which might even get enacted someday) - usually legislative counsel (non partisan career employees) will clean up language, but the cleaner the original draft is, the better job Leg can do, meaning that institutional experience (I.e. legislators who know what's achievable and how to ask for what they want, as well as staff who can rely on it as a long term job and aren't necessarily going to be constantly looking for their 12th year exit option and therefore can develop the necessary drafting expertise and issue expertise) matters. Legislator turnover also causes increased staff turnover and leads to an even worse revolving door effect. I did mean by the representative him or herself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Are you a Republican Senator facing a possible primary challenge? A curly-haired libertarian friend is here to help! Am I missing something or this ad pouting about the mean ol' Amry Corp of Engineers telling people they can't safely fish somewhere, and Lamar Alexander heroically passing a bill that said "nah."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
Syjefroi posted:Am I missing something or this ad pouting about the mean ol' Amry Corp of Engineers telling people they can't safely fish somewhere, and Lamar Alexander heroically passing a bill that said "nah." The ad has Rand Paul in it. Ron Paul is currently trying to recruit primary challengers to Alexander such as WWE wrestler Kane for this very race.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Ron Paul is currently trying to recruit primary challengers to Alexander such as WWE wrestler Kane for this very race. I'm delighted beyond words that this is really something that is happening. In similar news, a former mayor of a small Alaskan town might challenge Mark Begich. (She won't)
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Well, that and it's basically a literacy test for old people instead of black people. Medical tests to determine if due to advancing years and physical deterioration of the brain one is no longer capable to carry out a role are in no way the same as jim crow. One will never be too black to carry out a role, one can objectively be too senile however. Or are you seriously suggesting the increased scrutiny of older drivers: http://www.iihs.org/laws/olderdrivers.aspx is akin to police profiling of minority drivers?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
This is a pretty big deal locally, although the Ron Rice Jr. shot at the end is pretty funny too:Star-Ledger posted:NEWARK — New Jersey's largest police department will make public the race, gender and age of every person they stop and frisk in monthly reports under a new policy that the ACLU called "one of the most comprehensive in the nation."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:The ad has Rand Paul in it. Ron Paul is currently trying to recruit primary challengers to Alexander such as WWE wrestler Kane for this very race. Speaking of Rand Paul, defender of civil liberties, the man we should all look to because he dared to stand up to Obama hires White Supremacists to his staff. I really wish he was up this year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I did mean by the representative him or herself. Ok. I agree, they rarely write their own text (though once in a whole you get one who does - this is usually not a good thing, most of them suck at drafting legislative text because its a lot harder than it seems like to write a clear, clean bill). But I think it's shortsighted to focus on the Congressperson themself to the exclusion of their office. In a very real sense, there are two of every congressperson - there's the individual, and then there's the combination of them and their office. It's probably more useful to think of the effect of term limits on the latter, as that's the relevant entity. I found it a lot more common for older staff for older members to be able to negotiate because of how well they knew what their boss wanted, while younger staff often had to go back on what they stated because their boss decided against their recommendation. Basically, if you're worried about things like institutional memory as well as potential to be influenced, you have to consider staff turnover as well. If you think the members should be forced out periodically, why wouldn't you want that logic to apply to staff? At the same time, institutional memory on the part of staff is crucial too. I guess the tldr version of that is: term limits that don't apply to staff ignore a large part of the "problem" they're trying to fix and term limits that do apply to staff make everything less functional except for the revolving door. Lobbyist influence is a lot higher on newer staff than on career staff, too, because of the lack of knowledge and the higher likelihood of wanting to leave.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Did Booker piss in the cereal of someone influential at the NYT? I'm asking because this weird article that seems like nothing but a subtle smear: Why is every legitimate criticism of Cory Booker some kind of smear? His record as mayor of newark is a VERY mixed bag and good for the NYT to point that out amid the court of personality surrounding him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
Nobody has accused Scott Schaben, a car salesman running for the Republican Senate nomination in Iowa, of being a racist, but just in case you were considering doing that you should know that you can't because his wife is black. So there, Bruce Braley (who, again, has not actually said anything on the subject)!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Medical tests to determine if due to advancing years and physical deterioration of the brain one is no longer capable to carry out a role are in no way the same as jim crow. One will never be too black to carry out a role, one can objectively be too senile however. You can be too stupid (which is correlated to race) to carry out a role, and that's exactly what happened the last time we had literacy tests. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Why is every legitimate criticism of Cory Booker some kind of smear? His record as mayor of newark is a VERY mixed bag and good for the NYT to point that out amid the court of personality surrounding him. Because there really isn't a lot of legitimate criticism, and the NYT pieces blatantly lied? If you want to scream about hedge funds, fine, but don't pretend he hasn't legitimately done a great job as mayor, or that most of his critics in Newark are outright criminals. Quoting Ron Rice like that article did today lying about Booker is not legitimate criticism. His ties to corrupt figures like Norcross and Joe D however are quite disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Nobody has accused Scott Schaben, a car salesman running for the Republican Senate nomination in Iowa, of being a racist, but just in case you were considering doing that you should know that you can't because his wife is black. So there, Bruce Braley (who, again, has not actually said anything on the subject)! Sorry Schaben, you're gonna have to marry an Armenian, a Samoan, and a dude before I truly believe you've unshackled your heart from the chains of identity privilege.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
Next up: "War on women? Hey pal, my wife is a woman!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You can be too stupid (which is correlated to race) to carry out a role, and that's exactly what happened the last time we had literacy tests. There is a difference between stupidity and mental degradation. Have you known anyone with severe Alzheimers? They will not what what year/decade/century it is, who they are talking to even if it is people they have known their whole life, etc. You can be stupid and still bumble though a job, severe Alzheimers prevents you from being able to navigate your own house without getting lost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Because there really isn't a lot of legitimate criticism, and the NYT pieces blatantly lied? If you want to scream about hedge funds, fine, but don't pretend he hasn't legitimately done a great job as mayor, or that most of his critics in Newark are outright criminals. Quoting Ron Rice like that article did today lying about Booker is not legitimate criticism. His ties to corrupt figures like Norcross and Joe D however are quite disturbing. He most certainly has not done a unambiguous great job as mayor. He's done some good things and from a progressive prospective, more bad. I would really love to know what that NYT piece a few months back about his mixed bag performance as mayor lied about. I never saw any corrections issued and Booker himself never challenged the points that were made. There is a reason that Booker is MUCH more popular with people outside Newark than he is inside the city and that has everything to do with this skillful self promotion and nothing to do with any policy or political success he's had. He's spent his time palling around with criminals like Michelle Rhee and billionaires and pushing right wing policy. mcmagic fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 11:35
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I would really love to know what that NYT piece a few months back about his mixed bag performance as mayor lied about. I never saw any corrections issued and Booker himself never challenged the points that were made. Booker went absolutely nuts about it, the Times had to issue a bunch of corrections, and a Sulzberger had to write a memo defending the piece.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Booker went absolutely nuts about it, the Times had to issue a bunch of corrections, and a Sulzberger had to write a memo defending the piece. Those corrections really change nothing about the story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 18:20
|
|