• @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5111 months ago

        Term limits empower lobbyists and career staffers and encourage legislators to give less of a shit about their constituents. I know “career politician” is often considered a dirty word, but having competent, knowledgeable elected officials is a good thing.

        • @[email protected]
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5711 months ago

          They are already openly corrupt. Term limits would result in younger candidates in touch with this century. Lobbyists would also have to bribe new people. It might also break up the ridiculous 100% party voting.

          Not to mention help with our Supreme Court problems. Randomly giving appointments that last decades to whoever is president in at the time is insane.

          I really don’t think we have that many competent elected officials anyway.

          Yes, eliminating gerrymandering and citizens united would be more effective, but I wouldn’t kick term limits out of bed.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            4111 months ago

            We have term limits in Florida. They have done nothing to solve any problems, and arguably have made the quality of our officials worse, while giving much more power to lobbyists.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2911 months ago

            None of that has happened in the states that have term limits. If you think Republicans, no matter how long they have been in office, are going to start putting anyone other than Federalist Society drones on the courts, I’m not sure I can have a good faith argument with you.

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod
            link
            fedilink
            1211 months ago

            Term limits are as likely as ranked-choice voting, which would also solve a lot of problems but won’t be passed in a significant way in my lifetime

            • @[email protected]
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              1611 months ago

              They actually just passed ranked choice voting in my city.

              It does seem crazy to have a system where 49% of people preferred the other guy, but he lost so those people now get zero representation.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            811 months ago

            Term limits would result in younger candidates in touch with this century.

            Yes cuz that’s worked so well in places that already have them…

          • phillaholic
            link
            fedilink
            111 months ago

            Lobbyists would also have to bribe new people.

            No they’d hand pick them, run them on utter lies that they can’t be challenged, then throw them out when the public wises up. You seriously underestimate how far the power dynamic can swing.

        • Billiam
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2411 months ago

          On the other hand, the current system of “representatives spend one full year campaigning and one full year fundraising for their party, so any legislation they sponsor in their two-year term is already written by lobbyists” isn’t working out so hot either.

          Throw in a law restricting campaigning more than three months before an election and a law limiting campaigns to only spending equally-dispersed public funds, and you might start to see some improvement. Oh, and reverse Citizen’s United and ban Super PACs while you’re at it. And can we all get a free unicorn too?

        • FuglyDuck
          link
          fedilink
          English
          911 months ago

          yeah, because the current batch of politicians are sooooo concerned with their constituents.

          On the other hand, lets ignore the fact that the vast majority of senators (and the president, and most presidential canidates,) are so “experienced” that the majority of their experience predates… the internet. Never mind social media or anything resembling the modern world we find our selves in.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Yep. Why is 65 not a forced retirement for politicians, when it is used in many less important industries?

        • candyman337
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          There is definitely reasonable legislation that can have the best of both worlds here. That’s a poor argument against them

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            711 months ago

            We have about 25 years worth of experiments with it in various states, so it’s been well studied. Legislating is a skill that needs to be developed, just like anything else, and a bunch of term-limited newbies have no incentive to do anything except get ready for the next thing, which only enhances the possiblity of corruption.

      • IronCorgi
        link
        fedilink
        2811 months ago

        I don’t think term limits will solve anything near what people pitching term limits as a panacea think they will solve.

        • deweydecibel
          link
          fedilink
          13
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          People that pitch that as a catch-all solution have no idea how democracy works, they’re just understandably angry at the old white men who have ruined all our lives.

          All term limits would do is make it middle aged white men ruining our lives.

          Like, these people don’t seem to understand where politicians come from or how they get to be where they are.

          Mitch McConnell is the Senator from Kentucky. Trump won that state both years by 60%. It hasn’t elected a Democratic Senator since 1992. In fact, that Democratic Senator retired, ya know, as old men should. Then a Republican took that seat.

          So who do you think takes Mitch McConnell’s seat if we boot him out for old age? Does it matter who? We know what letter will be next to their name.

          It’s the people. The problem is the people. And the structure of the Senate that gives them disproportionate power.

          Also, look at the young Republicans like Madison Cawthorn and tell me they’re any better than their seniors.

          • Narrrz
            link
            fedilink
            411 months ago

            really, a lot of our problems boil down to “humans are just generally pretty shit”

          • phillaholic
            link
            fedilink
            111 months ago

            A better example is Joe Manchin. The thought of primarying him is laughable. Just hand the Republicans a full Seat in the senate why don’t you.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          011 months ago

          It will definitely solve some problems while causing arguably no new ones, I think that’s enough to push for something to happen.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2311 months ago

        Bernie, Joe, and the other guy are all within 4 years of age with each other. Bernie is the only one in that group who’s decided NOT to run, so I’m not sure why you’re singling him out. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ Generally the opinion I’ve seen from his supporters is that he can do better from his current position and that his chance at the presidency has passed.

      • Drusas
        link
        fedilink
        6
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        When there’s only one politician of any consequence out there who represents your views…