Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Valmy]

You can have a very long career in politics with 12 years in the House.

[DGuller]

You can have a very long career in politics with 12 years in the House.

That's not a very long career.  My career in my field is longer than that, and I feel like I'm still learning.

[Valmy]

You can have a very long career in politics with 12 years in the House.

That's not a very long career.  My career in my field is longer than that, and I feel like I'm still learning.

Plenty of other offices to serve in. Take that congressional experience and us it someplace else.

[DGuller]

You can have a very long career in politics with 12 years in the House.

That's not a very long career.  My career in my field is longer than that, and I feel like I'm still learning.

Plenty of other offices to serve in. Take that congressional experience and us it someplace else.

What's wrong with using it in Congress?

[Razgovory]

I would have thought that Trump is the perfect example of why we shouldn't have inexperienced government officials.

[Tonitrus]

Term limits are one of the most un-democratic concepts there are.  They're job is subject to popular vote...crying for term limits is essentially the same as saying the one doesn't like the results of their elections.

[alfred russel]

Term limits are one of the most un-democratic concepts there are.  They're job is subject to popular vote...crying for term limits is essentially the same as saying the one doesn't like the results of their elections.

I freely admit that I don't like the results of our elections.

[Tonitrus]

Term limits are one of the most un-democratic concepts there are.  They're job is subject to popular vote...crying for term limits is essentially the same as saying the one doesn't like the results of their elections.

I freely admit that I don't like the results of our elections.

Which is fine!  But if you feel the need to put filters on the electoral system, then one might invite suspicion that the problem is that you also don't really care for democracy (unless it always goes your way...or your way most of the time).

[alfred russel]

There are a lot of structural problems, but I think one of the biggest is the compensation structure. You get elected to congress or the white house (or appointed to a senior position like in the cabinet), and your salary would leave you in the middle class. The way to get to the upper class is to cash in on the speaking circuit, through book advances, or a job with a company that you regulated. If you want to make real $$$, don't rock the boat with those that will cut checks on the speaking circuit or the companies you regulate, or do stuff that will help you sell books.

[alfred russel]

Which is fine!  But if you feel the need to put filters on the electoral system, then one might invite suspicion that the problem is that you also don't really care for democracy (unless it always goes your way...or your way most of the time).

For a lot of reasons, there is power in incumbancy (patronage, increased donations which may be a bit dubious in intent). That can be seen as undemocratic too, and term limits can be a way to counteract that.

[Tonitrus]

It is my understanding that most of the "tenure" advantage that incumbents have is the lobbyist/donation-industrial complex...giving incumbents an inherent money advantage.*  That is perhaps the best place (and the hardest one to solve) to level the playing field.






*But I also tend to be sympathetic to the view that if one believes that money really buys elections, then you must think that voters are essentially gullible, which also means one must think they are superior to all those other "gullible voters" who are duped by that money, and at that point...why do you think they should have the voting franchise at all?

[Tonitrus]

Which is fine!  But if you feel the need to put filters on the electoral system, then one might invite suspicion that the problem is that you also don't really care for democracy (unless it always goes your way...or your way most of the time).

For a lot of reasons, there is power in incumbancy (patronage, increased donations which may be a bit dubious in intent). That can be seen as undemocratic too, and term limits can be a way to counteract that.

It can be...but as I implied in my post that missed yours...I don't think it is the best way.  And in fact, the cheap, easy, and undemocratic way out.  But as I also said...the best way is the hardest one to get done, as it requires human beings to act against their own interests.  Alas, almost always a losing proposition.

But, in our system, it should show voters...if they're paying attention, what the quality of their representatives is.

[crazy canuck]

It is my understanding that most of the "tenure" advantage that incumbents have is the lobbyist/donation-industrial complex...giving incumbents an inherent money advantage.*  That is perhaps the best place (and the hardest one to solve) to level the playing field.






*But I also tend to be sympathetic to the view that if one believes that money really buys elections, then you must think that voters are essentially gullible, which also means one must think they are superior to all those other "gullible voters" who are duped by that money, and at that point...why do you think they should have the voting franchise at all?

Money influences everything in politics.  One does not have to be gullible to be effected or understand those effects.  From the legislation created with input from lobbyists, to spending decisions influenced by lobbyists, to the cost of running for office and the need to fund raise to cover those costs etc etc etc.  money makes the political machine go.

One would have to be pretty gullible to think money did not influence politics.

[Josquius]

Yeah I don't like the whole bitter "cut their salary" cries. As if that's how they make their money in the first place. If anything, increase their salary and scrutiny into their spending so there's an incentive not to sell their influence for pennies.

Whinging about politicians salaries is one of the most annoying populist things going.
So many people just don't get that salary isn't where the truly wealthy gain their wealth and that they're effectively calling for only rich people to be politicians.

[Tonitrus]

It is my understanding that most of the "tenure" advantage that incumbents have is the lobbyist/donation-industrial complex...giving incumbents an inherent money advantage.*  That is perhaps the best place (and the hardest one to solve) to level the playing field.






*But I also tend to be sympathetic to the view that if one believes that money really buys elections, then you must think that voters are essentially gullible, which also means one must think they are superior to all those other "gullible voters" who are duped by that money, and at that point...why do you think they should have the voting franchise at all?

Money influences everything in politics.  One does not have to be gullible to be effected or understand those effects.  From the legislation created with input from lobbyists, to spending decisions influenced by lobbyists, to the cost of running for office and the need to fund raise to cover those costs etc etc etc.  money makes the political machine go.

One would have to be pretty gullible to think money did not influence politics.

I don't disagree...but that point I made is, what does that say about human beings the effectiveness of democracy?  If it boils down to saying that one can almost put into an equation that "money-inputed=votes", then sure, it is easy to say "just take out, or minimize the money factor", but then isn't that also suggesting, that humans/voters might not people we should be entrusting with a vote, if they're so easily influenced by money?