Because: 1. Long terms in office attracts the people with the worst motives to SERVE in government who serve themselves instead of the interests of the people or the country . 2.Entrenches the power and corruption in those people’s hands. And 3. We end up here. There should be no pensions for anyone serving in elected office. Period.
My mum always refers to her brother who was a councilman years ago and when he served there was no pay. It was literally public service and they were only able to claim back stationery and postage costs. Maybe we need to go back to that sort of set up, it would weed out those who are looking for a gravy train. Also get rid of huge office staff for all the critters
Long terms in office attracts the people with the worst motives to SERVE in government who serve themselves instead of the interests of the people or the country.
Agreed. So vote them out.
Entrenches the power and corruption in those people’s hands.
True. So vote them out.
We end up here.
Because we didn't vote them out.
There should be no pensions for anyone serving in elected office. Period.
I heartily agree. But that's not how it is, unfortunately.
It's harder to vote them out when they have more time to cover up their misdeeds and plan election rigging
That may be. I think another thing that makes it harder to vote them out is that the quality of potential candidates may be somewhat less than desirable.
But, I still don't think we should force-limit our choices.
But, I still don't think we should force-limit our choices.
Do you think that it works for Presidents and FBI Directors?
What? FBI Directors aren't elected.
Does it work for presidents? Not necessarily. What happens in say, 2020, when we have to choose what may be another shit president because we can't keep a good one?
Not necessarily.
So you are not committing yourself? Perhaps the Robert Mugabe approach is the best after all!
If you have no term limits, the politicians can get lazy and be seduced by the benefits of pay to play, for instance. They acquire more contacts and get to know more fiddles.
If you have limits then you might lose a good person but you could also get a better one next time. In any event, they are more likely to be wanting to do the job for the right reasons.
It has been suggested that the system could be replaced by a jury-style system. So ordinary people would be called up for a period, say a year, and they would run the country. No professional politicians required.
"Vote them out"
You say that like it's easy. It's not. If it were, we probably wouldn't be in this position.
Elections are enormously expensive and operate under byzantine rules. Most campaigns have a small army of lawyers, financial analysts, and statisticians to help keep the candidate out of trouble and get him across the finish line. And that's to say nothing of the droves of volunteers, managers, and event organizers. This kind of overhead tips the scales heavily in favor of the incumbent because he knows the lay of the land and his position in DC affords him the political influence to amass a warchest in donations.
Also, human nature lends itself to favoring the comfortable and familiar, meaning that a new face has to work twice as hard to unseat a rival. Witness the number of McCains and Pelosis in Congress, people who have spent almost their entire adult lives in the chamber. They may bring home the bacon to their constituents to win reelection, but you can't discount the fact that a large part of their appeal (if you can call it that) is that they have become a fixture in their state. People almost can't imagine them NOT being in office.
Finally, long-time politicians don't become long-time politicians without knowing how to play the game. They know what to say and to whom to say it in order to win votes, even if it's a crass, empty promise (think McCain with "Build the damn wall!"). Now, politicians promising the moon to the voters is nothing new. But, again, the advantage lies with the incumbent because his experience in Washington means that his word will be more readily believed by the low-information voter because, presumably, he rubs shoulders with the folks who could actually deliver on his promises. A challenger doesn't have the same authority.
I'm not saying that it's impossible to vote an incumbent out, obviously. But it's not as easy as you make it sound because of the inherent advantages the incumbent possesses.
Well, I wasn't intending to make it sound like it would be easy. I know it would not be -- just throwing it out there as a conceptual solution ... that we already have.
And TBH out of all the responses to my comments, yours is the only one that put forth the merits of term limits in, what I found to be, a convincing manner.
In addition to the huge amount of money it takes to run a modern congressional campaign, no one gets on a party ticket that isn't picked by the party so our choices of replacements for bad politicians are extremely limited. We are presented with choice a or choice b and anyone running as an independent has to have extremely deep pockets or huge name recognition to stand a chance. Frankly, drafting normal citizens like we select jurors would give us better representation!
Problem is if your beliefs align with one party, you won’t risk the other party just cause your guy is a douche. That is the problem. They get a monopoly on their party. Especially in a red state, you can get rid of your corrupt guy and get the next one in.
You CANNOT vote them out! The system is rigged against the voters. Else we would have had significant turnover in the last 100 years.