Term limits wouldn’t have prevented this scenario, but they would mitigate the damage any one politician can do. Term limits would greatly reduce the opportunity for a corrupt politician to become entrenched.
I understand the appeal of term limits, but I don’t think they actually solve the problem. If politicians know they only have 2 terms then they are encouraged to play nice with industry contacts since they know they’ll be out of a job soon. Additionally, I think there’s something to be said about knowing your constituents and the inner workings of politics. A lot of political projects take a long time to realize and if people like the plan their politician has I don’t see why we’d force them out. Consistent leadership can be very helpful for long term political goals. I don’t think corrupt companies would care who they’re bribing that year. They’re just as happy to bribe one person for 40 years as 10 people for 4. If you get a good rep then it’s nice to know that you don’t have to worry about vetting a new one every time the limits come up.
I’m not saying they get the seat automatically forever. If people don’t like them they can still vote them out. I just think having a rep with a proven track record that you can vote for helps stop things like the Platner situation from happening every cycle. It’s hard to find people willing to put up with a public life, and often harder to find those that don’t have skeletons in their closets. I don’t know why we want to force people to find a new rep if they feel like their current one is doing well. Obviously people should be able to run against them still.
I’d go for a net worth restriction.
Anyone who is in the top 10% of the net worth of their constituents cannot run.
Anyone who is in the top 1% of the net worth of their constituents is immediately replaced.
👍 Which is why I didn’t say retirement age, it can be gamed. Life expectancy can be gamed too, but I would call it acceptable if they managed to raise it significantly.
Term limits are anti-democratic. You’re saying that we can’t trust the voters, so we need a rule; like they’re children. If you think the voters are the problem, then you don’t believe in democracy.
The mistake is believing that the situation with McConnell and the other dinosaurs is what the voters chose, rather than a system where the voters don’t get a meaningful choice. A system where the Senate itself is undemocratic. Not to mention the electoral college. Is McConnell’s long carrier due to his popularity in KY, or his popularity with the donor class?
We need more democracy in our democracy, not less.
Term limits are not suggesting voter competence at all they are imposed to prevent systemic, anti-democratic corruption. it’s the opposite of what you said. term limits support a healthy representative democracy. more candidates flow through, the more change.
I agree with you. Career politicians are not inherently bad. In fact, they can be very good, when someone strategically works for an issue or constituency over a long period and can enact long-term change, much like having a CEO for a decade vs having a CEO for a quarter. The problem is the corruption, which is not solved by term limits. Term limits actually make it easier to capture candidates, makes them cheaper and more disposable.
We need term limits because we can’t trust politicians to not abuse their indefinite stay in office to further their own agendas and line their pockets. Adding term limits won’t fully prevent this, but it will help.
Term limits wouldn’t have prevented this scenario, but they would mitigate the damage any one politician can do. Term limits would greatly reduce the opportunity for a corrupt politician to become entrenched.
We need term limits for Congress.
That might upset the American nobility
I understand the appeal of term limits, but I don’t think they actually solve the problem. If politicians know they only have 2 terms then they are encouraged to play nice with industry contacts since they know they’ll be out of a job soon. Additionally, I think there’s something to be said about knowing your constituents and the inner workings of politics. A lot of political projects take a long time to realize and if people like the plan their politician has I don’t see why we’d force them out. Consistent leadership can be very helpful for long term political goals. I don’t think corrupt companies would care who they’re bribing that year. They’re just as happy to bribe one person for 40 years as 10 people for 4. If you get a good rep then it’s nice to know that you don’t have to worry about vetting a new one every time the limits come up.
The problem with what you’re saying is that your idea of a good representative isn’t everybody’s idea of a good representative.
I’m not saying they get the seat automatically forever. If people don’t like them they can still vote them out. I just think having a rep with a proven track record that you can vote for helps stop things like the Platner situation from happening every cycle. It’s hard to find people willing to put up with a public life, and often harder to find those that don’t have skeletons in their closets. I don’t know why we want to force people to find a new rep if they feel like their current one is doing well. Obviously people should be able to run against them still.
Term limits just push things to the unelected “advisors” and aids.
An age limit would be a better option. I would push for 90% of life expectancy, which is 71 in the US. If you’re over that age, you can’t run again.
I’d go for a net worth restriction. Anyone who is in the top 10% of the net worth of their constituents cannot run. Anyone who is in the top 1% of the net worth of their constituents is immediately replaced.
I’d set it at the retirement age. Nobody over 65. Go spend time with your families ffs.
What was that? Retirement age is now 100?
or 1000 in case of mitch.
👍 Which is why I didn’t say retirement age, it can be gamed. Life expectancy can be gamed too, but I would call it acceptable if they managed to raise it significantly.
No, no, it is 65 for our government if they want, everyone else is 100.
Retirement age can be gamed. Even worse, it’s to the rich’s benefit, and our cost. Life expectancy is harder to game in a way that hurts the plebs.
A McDonald’s manager and McDonald’s hiring contract would have prevented this.
Term limits are anti-democratic. You’re saying that we can’t trust the voters, so we need a rule; like they’re children. If you think the voters are the problem, then you don’t believe in democracy.
The mistake is believing that the situation with McConnell and the other dinosaurs is what the voters chose, rather than a system where the voters don’t get a meaningful choice. A system where the Senate itself is undemocratic. Not to mention the electoral college. Is McConnell’s long carrier due to his popularity in KY, or his popularity with the donor class?
We need more democracy in our democracy, not less.
Term limits are not suggesting voter competence at all they are imposed to prevent systemic, anti-democratic corruption. it’s the opposite of what you said. term limits support a healthy representative democracy. more candidates flow through, the more change.
Without finance reform first, I think it will end up going the opposite direction honestly
And once we do have finance reform, I think term limits are unnecessary
I agree with you. Career politicians are not inherently bad. In fact, they can be very good, when someone strategically works for an issue or constituency over a long period and can enact long-term change, much like having a CEO for a decade vs having a CEO for a quarter. The problem is the corruption, which is not solved by term limits. Term limits actually make it easier to capture candidates, makes them cheaper and more disposable.
We need term limits because we can’t trust politicians to not abuse their indefinite stay in office to further their own agendas and line their pockets. Adding term limits won’t fully prevent this, but it will help.