- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkAgreed. Its common sense that the longer a politician is in office the greater the chance for corruption. I don't care if you're talking about the United States or Venezuela, term limits is a good idea. I think its high time we have term limits on congress here in the US.
The one nice thing about term limits is that it tends to reduce the amount of well-entrenched politicians that can feed government pork to their spouses defense company for decades, etc.
Originally posted by MerkIf you wish to assume that the people are too stupid to decide whether to keep specific politicians in power for long periods, then there is little reason for democracy in the first place.
The one nice thing about term limits is that it tends to reduce the amount of well-entrenched politicians that can feed government pork to their spouses defense company for decades, etc.
Term limits are a restriction on the people's ability to choose their representatives and thus are undemocratic.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're oversimplifying the issue. It is obvious, based on past results, that incumbents have the advantage in an election for whatever reason.
If you wish to assume that the people are too stupid to decide whether to keep specific politicians in power for long periods, then there is little reason for democracy in the first place.
Term limits are a restriction on the people's ability to choose their representatives and thus are undemocratic.
Here is a chart showing incumbent winning percentages in the US since 1946. It hovers around 90%. Is that because the incumbent is always the best candidate? I highly doubt it. There is something else going on there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/incumbent_victories_data.htm
Originally posted by UllrSo what? If the people choose to vote in the incumbent 90% of the time, that's their business. If they are satisfied with the incumbent 90% of the time, why should an arbitrary rule be enacted saying they can't be represented by the person they favor?
You're oversimplifying the issue. It is obvious, based on past results, that incumbents have the advantage in an election for whatever reason.
Here is a chart showing incumbent winning percentages in the US since 1946. It hovers around 90%. Is that because the incumbent is always the best candidate? I highly doubt it. There is something else going on there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/incumbent_victories_data.htm
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI'll come right out and admit it. I think term limits are a common sense measure to protect the people against their own laziness and stupidity. It is clear from the overwhelming evidence that an incumbent enjoys a significant competitive advantage when up for re-election. I doubt you liberals would have been lauding the democratic principles of unlimited terms if Ronald Reagan had been able to run for the 3rd term.
So what? If the people choose to vote in the incumbent 90% of the time, that's their business. If they are satisfied with the incumbent 90% of the time, why should an arbitrary rule be enacted saying they can't be represented by the person they favor?
1 edit
Originally posted by UllrIf the people are really that lazy and stupid, then democracy is undesirable.
I'll come right out and admit it. I think term limits are a common sense measure to protect the people against their own laziness and stupidity. It is clear from the overwhelming evidence that an incumbent enjoys a significant competitive advantage when up for re-election. I doubt you liberals would have been lauding the democratic principles of unlimited terms if Ronald Reagan had been able to run for the 3rd term.
EDIT: You are, of course, wrong at least so far as this "liberal" is concerned.
Originally posted by no1marauderI do not 'wish' to presume. I DO presume that the people have no problem with their elected leaders using the collectives money to enrich their friends, family and people who can otherwise be of help.
If you wish to assume that the people are too stupid to decide whether to keep specific politicians in power for long periods, then there is little reason for democracy in the first place.
Term limits are a restriction on the people's ability to choose their representatives and thus are undemocratic.
Term limits are no more a 'undemocratic' than not allowing 3 years olds to run for office or foreign nationals etc.
If we're going to get ridiculious about 'democratic restrictions', anything short of anarchy is a 'democratic restriction' and only those that assume the people are to stupid to govern themselves would support democracy to at any degree.
Originally posted by MerkThis post is just raving and ranting. To equate letting adults vote for whom they please to allowing a three year old to vote is a ridiculous stretch even for you.
I do not 'wish' to presume. I DO presume that the people have no problem with their elected leaders using the collectives money to enrich their friends, family and people who can otherwise be of help.
Term limits are no more a 'undemocratic' than not allowing 3 years olds to run for office or foreign nationals etc.
If we're going to get ridiculious abo ...[text shortened]... the people are to stupid to govern themselves would support democracy to at any degree.
I expect now that Republicans have lost the Congress to start hearing another clarion call for term limits from the right wing. This was, of course, a major component of the Contract for America, but somehow it seemed less desirable after the people who ran on the CFA got elected.
Corruption can be handled by the legal apparatus of the criminal law. Questionable ethical behavior can be addressed by full disclosure to the voting public. Both are pretty commonplace in 21st Century America so I see no necessity to take choices away from the American public on the basis that they are too stupid to make rational choices.
Originally posted by FMFOriginally posted by generalissimo
Keep us informed as to what the Economist, the Wall Street Journal and the Daily Telegraph say.
Whats your point?
If you are, indeed, intellectually and politically curious, it is apparent that you sell yourself short. If you were reading widely, and in a balanced way, about Venezuela, then your OPs would perhaps be a little more eclectic than the mere serving up of infamously agenda-driven and economic with the truth fayre from The Economist, the Wall Street Journal and the Daily Telegraph. If you don't know what I am getting at, then it rather proves my point.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not equating it to allowing 3 year olds to vote. Reread the post. I said term limits are no more a restriction on democracy than not allowing a 3 year old to run for office.
This post is just raving and ranting. To equate letting adults vote for whom they please to allowing a three year old to vote is a ridiculous stretch even for you.
I expect now that Republicans have lost the Congress to start hearing another clarion call for term limits from the right wing. This was, of course, a major component of the C ...[text shortened]... es away from the American public on the basis that they are too stupid to make rational choices.
I've always wanted term limits. But you are certainly correct that the republicans will get louder on this topic now that they need a popular issue to to be 'theirs'.
Corruption is not being handled by the legal apparatus. It's rampant.
I would appreciate if you would stop deliberately mistating my position. That's twice in one post that you've read what you wanted to hear, not what I wrote. I never said the voting public was stupid, I said they don't care. At least not sufficiently enough to vote the corrupt out of office. Party politics tends to be more important than ethics. Both parties voters will give their own a pass on all but the worst corruption.
Originally posted by MerkYou've lost me here, I must admit. If you want to land a blow on no1marauder, you might have to offer a more seaworthy 'point' than this.
Term limits are no more a 'undemocratic' than not allowing 3 years olds to run for office
Term limits are considered 'undemocratic' in Japan, India, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. That's just for starters. What's your beef with the 'democracy' credentials of these seven countries, for instance?