|
Star Man posted:So I have a dumb question. Quite a few. While we love to talk poo poo about entrenched politicians who have been in their seat for ages and will probably be continually reelected until death, there's some benefit to having some Congressmen who are not in constant fear of losing their seat - namely, they're more free to vote according to the things they think are good for the country rather than just what the polls tell them will work for their district. Institutional memory is a thing too; it's good to have some folks around who are familiar with the process of how laws actually get made. That doesn't mean that Congressmen-For-Life should be the order of the day or anything - there are downsides to entrenchment as well. But it's not an unambiguous evil. The institution of term limits is very much a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" solution.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
Star Man posted:So I have a dumb question. Why would we need term limits? If the answer is to prevent politicians from being entrenched and unremovable, then why not vote them out? If the answer to that is we can't because of gerrymandering, then the real problem is with our electoral process and not the length of terms; if we can't because of massive monied influence protecting them, then the real problem is with our campaign finance laws and not the length of terms; if we can't because they make good votes that the people support then there's no problem.  Basically term limits don't seem to really address systemic electoral and political problems while punishing people who actually do good work and are supported by the will of the people. At least from my cursory look at them. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Star Man posted:So I have a dumb question. Being in politics (and a legislature) is more than just a town hall and there's a lot of procedural gaming and position knowing, and other more esoteric things that aren't just going to be apparent to anyone not involved. Term limits means any politician who starts to pick up on these things gets thrown out so you're left with nothing but inexperienced legislators who instead of having reliable staffers to assist them turn to professional lobbyists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Why would we need term limits? If the answer is to prevent politicians from being entrenched and unremovable, then why not vote them out? If the answer to that is we can't because of gerrymandering, then the real problem is with our electoral process and not the length of terms; if we can't because of massive monied influence protecting them, then the real problem is with our campaign finance laws and not the length of terms; if we can't because they make good votes that the people support then there's no problem. Do I have this right? Term limits are another half-assed, band-aid solution to a problem so ingrained into society that removing isn't exactly that simple and requires dethroning people who have true power. See also: deporting illegals and tort reform.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Huh; I thought the US had stricter regulations on whiskey, bourbon, and all that. Welp. Great-(something)-Uncle gathered a bunch of people up and led them around town, breaking things. They beat up a priest. Then they got to my Great-(something)-Grandpa's house and grandpa punched his brother in the face and threw him into the pigs. Then Great-Uncle got read out of town and skipped up north to some land Ethan Allen put aside for people rebelling against the government. As I understand it, this is most of what happened. And their descendants? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Do I have this right? Term limits are another half-assed, band-aid solution to a problem so ingrained into society that removing isn't exactly that simple and requires dethroning people who have true power. See also: deporting illegals and tort reform. Term limits can make sense, but really only for executive positions. And that's down to the fact that typically there's only a handful of elected executive offices versus dozens to hundreds of members of a legislative body, thus having the same dude able to skate by for term on term in executive positions can be way more of an issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Term limits can make sense, but really only for executive positions. And that's down to the fact that typically there's only a handful of elected executive offices versus dozens to hundreds of members of a legislative body, thus having the same dude able to skate by for term on term in executive positions can be way more of an issue. Yeah the executive makes sense since it's essentially one person running what amounts to 1/3 of the government. Though I'm talking about the legislative branch since that's what the tea fuckers bitch about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Legislative term limits will accomplish not a single worthwhile goal, but they sure do have a lot populistic allure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Legislative term limits will accomplish not a single worthwhile goal, but they sure do have a lot populistic allure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Legislative term limits will accomplish not a single worthwhile goal, but they sure do have a lot populistic allure. In fact, I'd say their populist allure is due to the exact opposite of what term limits actually achieve. Term limits concentrate power into the hands of political party bosses at the expense of everyone else. We have a process in place to systemically correct and replace bad legislators: elections. Don't force someone out of the job outside an election unless you want party bosses, lobbyists, and independently wealthy funders to have a lot more influence than they already do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:How is Whiskey brand whiskey? edit: how could I make such a mistake? CannonFodder fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Lycus posted:Legislative term limits will accomplish not a single worthwhile goal, but they sure do have a lot populistic allure. What if the terms for congress members were extended to four years; alternating with presidential elections like the summer/winter Olympics™? I've always thought it might help if they could have more time to do their jobs, without having to Cause that always seemed to be the most hosed up part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:What if the terms for congress members were extended to four years; alternating with presidential elections like the summer/winter Olympics™? I always figured the difference between the Senate (long terms) and HoR (short terms) was a deliberate soft-checks-and-balances thing where the Representatives are meant to represent the Zeitgeist while the Senators represent institutional inertia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:I always figured the difference between the Senate (long terms) and HoR (short terms) was a deliberate soft-checks-and-balances thing where the Representatives are meant to represent the Zeitgeist while the Senators represent institutional inertia. That and less turnover with the Senate yeah basically. Year-long congressional campaigns kind of ruined that part. At least in contested districts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:I always figured the difference between the Senate (long terms) and HoR (short terms) was a deliberate soft-checks-and-balances thing where the Representatives are meant to represent the Zeitgeist while the Senators represent institutional inertia. Yes, this. It was even more so when the Senators were appointed by state legislatures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yes, this. It was even more so when the Senators were appointed by state legislatures. I thought early on the system was gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I thought early on the system was gubernatorial appointment with legislative confirmation? The original text: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years;"
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Lycus posted:The original text: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years;" Repeal the 17th Amendment! Bring it back to what the Framers intended.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
Nick Soapdish posted:Repeal the 17th Amendment! Bring it back to what the Framers intended. Oh man, this topic had me stumble upon the 19th Oregon Legislative Assembly. Quick, someone tell the House TeaParty Caucus about them!
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Term limits give even more power to the bureaucracy (which, according to some, is where the true power is even now)
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
From California Crackup, term limits are a disaster. Legislators aren't just perpetually running for their own jobs, they're perpetually running for some other job in the devil's own game of musical chairs. There's no institutional knowledge, no incentive to compromise, no reward for long term thinking, and the actual power goes to lobbyists (who metastasized in Sacramento after term limits were introduced) and unelected Party officials. Shittastic as Congress is right now, term limits would somehow make it even worse. My thoughts on fixing Congress would be changing the committee structure, so it's less majority/seniority FYGM, and changing the process for advancing bills to something that allows them to be advanced. And since when I'm drinking I get stupid libertopian ideas, maybe a process for getting rid of old bills that no longer have any reason to exist--if one turns out to be important we can pass an updated law to replace it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
They should have unlimited terms but let us vote on how much money they get. You couldn't just vote though, you would have to make a bet or an "investment" in their popularity. As more people invest in a particular professional liar, their price would go up and you would have opportunity to sell your stake or receive a contractually obligated schedule of dividends.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Biffmotron posted:From California Crackup, term limits are a disaster. Legislators aren't just perpetually running for their own jobs, they're perpetually running for some other job in the devil's own game of musical chairs. There's no institutional knowledge, no incentive to compromise, no reward for long term thinking, and the actual power goes to lobbyists (who metastasized in Sacramento after term limits were introduced) and unelected Party officials. Shittastic as Congress is right now, term limits would somehow make it even worse. Having been a lobbyist in a state with term limits in a past life, I completely agree with your assessment. Being a native of a state without term limits, its like night and day how things operate differently between the legislatures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Term limits give even more power to the bureaucracy (which, according to some, is where the true power is even now) I don't know about that. Legislators in my experience are one of the very few entities that can bring down true hell on an institution (or a slice of one) because of the very specific powers they wield and a freshly elected person seems more likely to only understand the hammer in that toolbox. I think term limits would generally be a bad idea but I could see something like a 20-year max having value, if only because the person you were at 35 is probably going to be very different than the person at 55 and being an elected official should be something bigger than someone's job. Maybe require a term break after 20 years or something, and then if everyone wants you back after that you can pull another 4 terms or so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Yeah, the only time I'd think term limits would be acceptible would be if the limit was very high. Like a 5-term Senator or a 10 (maybe more than ten? 14? 16?)-term Congressman. If you can't run due to to term limits you'd be allowed to run again next election and if you win the same position you had last time (Congressman or Senator from the same state) you would be considered to have the same seniority as when you left.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Yeah, the only time I'd think term limits would be acceptible would be if the limit was very high. Like a 5-term Senator or a 10 (maybe more than ten? 14? 16?)-term Congressman. If you can't run due to to term limits you'd be allowed to run again next election and if you win the same position you had last time (Congressman or Senator from the same state) you would be considered to have the same seniority as when you left. That still really fucks up seniority and the benefits states receive by having senior members.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:That still really fucks up seniority and the benefits states receive by having senior members. I think that people who have been in Washington forever being forced to take a break for a couple years to reconnect with their constituents might be a good idea. It's not good if they're forced to retire entirely, that results in brain drain and increased dependence on lobbyists. But getting away from the Beltway for a little bit might be healthy. Maybe the concept is still too naive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Yeah, I figured it's a bad thing. It's like saying political parties are bad because it puts in an us vs. them scenario. In order to maintain a certain balance, you need enough like-minded people in a legislative body to vote a certain way and have similar ideals. Even if every single politician in Congress was not a part of a party, they would still coalesce into voting blocs and back each other. And yeah, when there are short term limits, which is generally what people who don't know a loving thing they're talking about (like my mother) mean, the legislative body is remaking itself so much that there's no stability. Anyway, if my mother brings it up again, I'll ask her if she'll be voting to re-elect Mike Enzi for a fourth term.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
Star Man posted:So I have a dumb question. A simple way to explain it to her is like if you or her had a job. Assume you are good at your job and your boss is happy you are happy but regardless of how well you do your job you are not gonna get to keep. By the time you get the hang of your job and really start doing well, your job is over. This gives a reason to not do a good job This will put the worry of where your next job is gonna be Other forces or interest will use this fact to temp bribe or influence how you do your job. It will comprise governance by having a constant series of amateurs who wont be working for your interests any. Hope that help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Anyway, if my mother brings it up again, I'll ask her if she'll be voting to re-elect Mike Enzi for a fourth term.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Also what magically makes fresh congress people less corruptible? A check shirt and white pants 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
There definitely needs to be some kind of test of your faculties. This poo poo where we're re-electing guys like Byrd while he's basically fallen apart and LITERALLY (yes literally) LITERALLY cannot perform the job of Senator is just stupid and wasn't at all anticipated. With life expectancy and incumbency both on the rise guess how much more of that poo poo we're in store for? They really do need to tackle that issue. I have no idea how. Some cognitive function test or just show them things like mobile phones and pictures of minorities and see what words they use to describe them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:A check shirt and white pants Everyone in his district knows hes gay. The only question is, has he used his position of authority to unduly influence some easily-influenced demographic for his personal funtime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 08:44
|
|
|
Apologies for the  but I'm curious how goons would address some poo poo I butt heads with regularly.Teddybear posted:You lose institutional knowledge and legislators who have acquired expertise in their committee subjects and in policy. This makes legislators ineffective and more reliant on lobbyists and pressure groups for learning about issues and how to run their state. Term limits have been a failure in every state in which they were enacted, and there is no good reason to enact them unless you are actively trying to subvert the democratic process. Berke Negri posted:Being in politics (and a legislature) is more than just a town hall and there's a lot of procedural gaming and position knowing, and other more esoteric things that aren't just going to be apparent to anyone not involved. Term limits means any politician who starts to pick up on these things gets thrown out so you're left with nothing but inexperienced legislators who instead of having reliable staffers to assist them turn to professional lobbyists. Most of your complaints would be read as a demonstration of the Iron Law of Oligarchy in effect. If the inner workings of our democracy are so convoluted that regular citizens cannot possibly function as representatives without years of work experience, then regular citizens certainly cannot be expected to vote intelligently for representatives to fill these positions. If partisan and special interest concerns will rule over any congressperson until a golden age past which they have the requisite experience to play for real, then it is unrealistic to expect they will ever make a meaningful deviation later in life from what partisan and special interest concerns conditioned them to focus on in their formative period. The whole thing becomes an argument that legislative term limits are insufficient reform alone and additional action is needed to tackle the monster Congress has become. I never figured out a way to argue against this. Obviously you can brush the whole load of horseshit off as standard wingnut thinking- bludgeon the government, if it didn't work it's because you didn't bludgeon it hard enough- but if you do actually try discussing it, most things end up backfiring. Citing, say, state legislatures losing power relative to governors and an increase in legislative-executive conflict just nets the response that state governors need their own type of kneecapping. Trying to argue politics is like any other skilled profession in terms of on-the-job learning tends to turn into "if they're professionals they'd run the government like professionals" and that's one step from government-as-business crap. Maybe there's no good way of trying to talk to these people, but it's not a thing I want to give up on. VVVVVV "Party bosses and lobbyists" don't make these people angry like "parasitic congresspeople" do, so that shift isn't always perceived negatively. Death Panel Czar fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
The key line isXenocidebot posted:The entire motivation for a legislative term limit is to prevent careers in politics from being desirable, which term limits could do very well. In these schools of thought a career in politics is inherently crooked (because, you know, the government obviously feeds on created wealth while creating nothing) and keeping a person from stewing in one for too long is a worthy goal in and of itself. Thing is, a career in politics isn't just about being in office, it's about being involved in the political parties and machinery. In a world where term limits are in effect, careers in politics are still entirely viable, but the ones that are desirable are the unaccountable, unelected one, like high-level party functionaries and lobbyists. Term limits push the power in government away from elected positions- and thus away from the people who vote for those offices- and toward the party bosses and lobbyists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:You lose institutional knowledge and legislators who have acquired expertise in their committee subjects and in policy. This makes legislators ineffective and more reliant on lobbyists and pressure groups for learning about issues and how to run their state. Term limits have been a failure in every state in which they were enacted, and there is no good reason to enact them unless you are actively trying to subvert the democratic process. So why do we still have them for the president, governors, etc?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
effectual posted:So why do we still have them for the president, governors, etc? That inertia is a bad thing when it comes to all the power one executive yields.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
effectual posted:So why do we still have them for the president, governors, etc? Because there is a tipping point in the power balance where the negative aspects of allowing a single person to be entrenched in an executive position outweighs the benefits of their experience. Like was said earlier in the thread, that is something somewhat unique to Executives since you more-or-less have a single person running 1/3 of the entire government. Really, if you had complete guarantees on the quality of the candidate, the best form of government would actually be a benevolent dictatorship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
Personally I'd want some sort of cap on the amount of years a SCOTUS judge can serve. The idea that they are there until they decide to quit or literally die in the chair is crazy and those nine have a huge amount of personal political power. It just feel's wrong that a guy put into power by a President over twenty years ago is still making rulings on things that are highly political or if you screw up and that guy turns out to be terrible and incompetant you just have to deal with it until he drops dead. I think that something like you serve through four presidential terms would be fair.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
Good Citizen posted:How is Whiskey brand whiskey? While in Croatia I quite enjoyed "Pivo" (the word for beer) brand-beer, so I'm sure it's fine. Probably a step up from Lord Calvert.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 13:41
|
|
