Originally posted by MerkYou make the voting public sound stupid. Perhaps you think they are? Would that be why you want to interfere with whom they are allowed to vote for?
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.
Originally posted by FMFMy beef isn't with any 'credentials' or that term limits themselves are somehow more democratic.
You'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 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?
My beef is that not all measures to 'enhance democracy' are wise, yet are presented as some sort of truism.
A lack of term limits tends to produce politics that are more dynastic, hence corrupt. Whereas in contrast, term limits would reduce corruption, Thereby slowing the natural decay of a democracy into the dictatorship that arises when a democracy collapses under it's own excess.
Come to think of it, term limits could be argued to be more democratic by way of preserving democracy for more generations than would have otherwise lived democratic rule.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI don't think they're stupid. I think they're not concerned about what's viewed as 'business as usual' and therefore 'not that big a deal'.
You make the voting public sound stupid. Perhaps you think they are? Would that be why you want to interfere with whom they are allowed to vote for?
Again, we don't allow the people to vote for 3 year olds or foreign natiponals. Is that a restriction on democracy?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFNice try belittling the question instead of answering it.
Reductio ab absurdo et repetita juvant!
Wouldn't it be more democratic if a Brit could vote for a Frenchman or his neighbors daughter? Who are we to tell the people whom they can or can't vote for?
Edit: And my initial post still stands. Anything short of anarchy is a restriction on democracy. Why should the people have democracy at all?
Originally posted by MerkAnd yet you want to introduce them? It seems to me, as believers in democracy, that we either have to allow the people to decide or we don't. You advocate restricting choice. And yet you side-stepped commenting on the quality of democracy in Japan, India, Germany, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada (for instance) where there are no term limits and democratic choice is not restricted by arbitrary periods of time and the micro-managing of eligibility.
My beef isn't [...] that term limits themselves are somehow more democratic.
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkYou are Merk. And you seem intent on telling the people whom they can or can't vote for.
Who are we to tell the people whom they can or can't vote for?
Nice try belittling the question instead of answering it.
You wanted me to answer question such as this: We don't allow the people to vote for 3 year olds. Is that a restriction on democracy?
And my answer was: Reductio ab absurdo et repetita juvant!
If you feel belittled by this, and if you don't see how that is pretty much the only sensible answer available, then that is a matter for you and you only.
Originally posted by FMFParliamentary systems are not exactly great comparisons to Oogoland or my home country. That's why I didn't answer. .
And yet you want to introduce them? It seems to me, as believers in democracy, that we either have to allow the people to decide or we don't. You advocate restricting choice. And yet you side-stepped commenting on the quality of democracy in Japan, India, Germany, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada (for instance) where there are no term limits and democratic choice is not restricted by arbitrary periods of time and the micro-managing of eligibility.
Originally posted by FMFIf you are a believer in democracy, then you well understand that nations, at least large ones, require some sort of central government. Every single thing required to have a central government, democratic, republic or otherwise, is a restriction on democracy. The extension of reducing limits on current democracies or 'enhancing democracy' is Direct Democracy. A form of government well proven not to work.
And yet you want to introduce them? It seems to me, as believers in democracy, that we either have to allow the people to decide or we don't. You advocate restricting choice. And yet you side-stepped commenting on the quality of democracy in Japan, India, Germany, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada (for instance) where there are no term limits and democratic choice is not restricted by arbitrary periods of time and the micro-managing of eligibility.
Which is why all current democracies are heavily restricted by comparison. That's how I arrive at my position that not all restrictions on democracy are bad and not all enhancements are good.
It's perfectly acceptable that there are restrictions on whom we can vote for. The 3 year old, the foreign national, the child rapist, etc. etc. The only debate is to whether or not term limits are a bad restriction on democracy or a good restriction.
I've made a case for term limits, but nobody has made a case for not having them. At least not one that doesn't center around an erroneous truism.
Why is not having term limits better than having term limits?
Originally posted by MerkWhat? Still with this silliness?
It's perfectly acceptable that there are restrictions on whom we can vote for. The 3 year old, the foreign national, the child rapist, etc. etc.
Why is not having term limits better than having term limits?
Keeping 'good' people out of office because you want to keep people you might or might not have reason, not necessarily now - but perhaps 10 or 20 years in the future, to deem as 'bad' out of office (or restrict their 'badness' to two or three terms or whatever), rather than fight corruption in a more targetted way, with the abundance of tools available, strikes me as plain daft and certainly the start of a slippery slope.
In a democracy, things obstructing people participating, standing for office if they want to, and voting for who they want to, are unwanted, unnecessary interventions, regardless of the good faith you may be exercising by advocating this reduction of choice.
Originally posted by MerkTerm limits basically lead to politicians becoming lame ducks in their last term.
A lack of term limits tends to produce politics that are more dynastic, hence corrupt. Whereas in contrast, term limits would reduce corruption, Thereby slowing the natural decay of a democracy into the dictatorship that arises when a democracy collapses under it's own excess.
Come to think of it, term limits could be argued to be more democratic by way of preserving democracy for more generations than would have otherwise lived democratic rule.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
As I've shown in this thread, using the US as an example, the incumbent wins at least 90% of the time in most years. Why is that? Is it because they are a better person or a better candidate? No, not all the time. The answer I believe is that the incumbent has access to more money and more influence. As we all know money and influence are essential to running a political campaign. The longer an incumbent is in office it seems the more these factors grow in their favor and the harder it becomes for a challenger to unseat them. Simultaneously the incumbent is becoming more and more corrupt as the monetary support for interest groups, corporations, etc. grows. Favors must be repaid.
Term limits is not about limiting the choice of the people to vote for whom they want. It is about limiting the influence of those interest groups, corporations, etc. that as it stands now keep long term incumbents in their pocket.
FMF, made the point, that the problem should be attacked in a more targeted way rather than utilizing term limits. The problem with that approach is that the people in power (i.e. the incumbents) are the ones that make the rules. Your naive if you think they're going to target themselves for reform?
Originally posted by FMFI believe Im quite balanced about Venezuela.
Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]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 [i]econom ...[text shortened]... nd the Daily Telegraph. If you don't know what I am getting at, then it rather proves my point.[/b]
Im not a propaganda-fed doofus that you think I am.
Originally posted by FMFTerm limits are considered 'undemocratic' in Japan, India, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada.
You'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 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?
Why would they be undemocratic?
As far as Im concerned, term limits would only contribute to a democracy.
Originally posted by Merkwe don't allow the people to vote for 3 year olds or foreign natiponals. Is that a restriction on democracy?
I don't think they're stupid. I think they're not concerned about what's viewed as 'business as usual' and therefore 'not that big a deal'.
Again, we don't allow the people to vote for 3 year olds or foreign natiponals. Is that a restriction on democracy?
No.
People are supposed to vote for their representatives, if you're foreign you wouldn't be voting for your representative because you wouldn't be a citizen.