Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ won't run for re-election in '14. Cory Booker to run

[Razgovory]

Let's have term limits for Senators.

Yes, because the new ones that have been elected are the cream of the crop.

Let's only have them for 12 years at the most.

Repeal the 17th Amendment.  Cory Booker is quite an impressive figure, he is considered somewhat of an action hero for saving someone from a burning house last year.

That would make it easier to rig.

[Phillip V]

Let's have term limits for Senators.

Yes, because the new ones that have been elected are the cream of the crop.

Let's only have them for 12 years at the most.

So we then have a new wave of idiots?  The crusty old politicians are the ones who are most likely to resist turning a political opposition into an insurgency aiming to obliterate the government.  That's also why a lot of them have been purged by the Republicans.

How many "new nes"? Only a fraction of Senate seats are up for election every cycle.

And one could complain about "waves" of old incumbents succumbing to corruption and other scandals with time.

By time, a 6-year term is to "cool down" any new "insurgent" Senator.

[Tonitrus]

I would like a 6 term limit for representatives and a 3 term limit for senators, giving them at best a 30 year congressional career.

Term limits are undemocratic.  They inherently imply that the electorate is stupid and out of control.

[DontSayBanana]

Term limits are undemocratic.  They inherently imply that the electorate is stupid and out of control.

Yeah, well, so does the electoral college.  Given genius politicians like Sarah Palin and Kwame Kilpatrick, I think it's actually a pretty fair assumption to make at this point.

[Tonitrus]

Nah, the Electoral College is an attempt to include a "federalist", representation of the states (as opposed to the raw populace) factor into the selection of the head of the Executive branch.  Much like the Senate is supposed to be for the Legislative branch.

[Admiral Yi]

Term limits are undemocratic.  They inherently imply that the electorate is stupid and out of control.

Or alternatively that the powers of incumbency are too strong.

[Razgovory]

Term limits are undemocratic.  They inherently imply that the electorate is stupid and out of control.

Or alternatively that the powers of incumbency are too strong.

Any one else you would like to prevent from running for office because they are "too strong"?

[Admiral Yi]

wut?

[Razgovory]

wut?

I thought you were arguing in favor of term limits by saying that an incumbency made a canidate "too strong".  I was wondering if you thought anyone else was "too strong" to run for office.

[Admiral Yi]

I thought you were arguing in favor of term limits by saying that an incumbency made a canidate "too strong".

No.

[Razgovory]

I thought you were arguing in favor of term limits by saying that an incumbency made a canidate "too strong".

No.

Then what was the point of the post?

[DGuller]

I think his point was clear:  sitting politicians could become overly entrenched due to the power they wield, being sitting politicians.  If the power of incumbency is so great, inferior politicians can keep their seats despite the availability of much stronger candidates.  This isn't good for democracy, since the logical extreme of such a dynamic is politicians being chosen for life. 

Voters don't have to be stupid to let this happen either, since on an individual basis it would be rational to keep voting the old guy back in.  For example, you can have seniority rules that give more power to those who've been in the office for longer, so booting the old fart would reduce their voice in the federal government.  Of course, that isn't the only factor in this debate, and there are other arguments that counterbalance this concern, but Yi's point was very clear.

[Admiral Yi]

Then what was the point of the post?

I think the fundamental truth that is eluding you is it possible for someone to point out the pros of an idea without necessarily being in favor of it, or to point out the cons without necessarily being opposed.

[Razgovory]

I think his point was clear:  sitting politicians could become overly entrenched due to the power they wield, being sitting politicians.  If the power of incumbency is so great, inferior politicians can keep their seats despite the availability of much stronger candidates.  This isn't good for democracy, since the logical extreme of such a dynamic is politicians being chosen for life. 

Voters don't have to be stupid to let this happen either, since on an individual basis it would be rational to keep voting the old guy back in.  For example, you can have seniority rules that give more power to those who've been in the office for longer, so booting the old fart would reduce their voice in the federal government.  Of course, that isn't the only factor in this debate, and there are other arguments that counterbalance this concern, but Yi's point was very clear.

I was asking if this meant he was for term limits.

[Admiral Yi]

I was asking if this meant he was for term limits.

This is a fairly common pattern Raz.  You typically ask a loaded question, as in this case a question loaded with the assumption that I'm in favor of term limits, then when called on it, you claim that you were asking a question about the assumption all along.

"Seeing as how you're in favor of term limits, how about X" is not the same asking a person if they're in favor of term limits.

It would make you much more badass person if you asked the clarifying question *first.*