Stop Voting For Nincompoops

[FearlessFreep]

Why are term limits good when applied to the presidency, but, bad when applied to members of congress?

1) The President already has a lot of singular power that any given Senator/Rep doesn't have, so the power of the incumbency is magnified by the innate power of the office, putting a lot of power in one person's hands.

2) Presidents bring along most of their own staff, assistants, flunkies and what have you. Congress people are much more susceptible to the un-seen (unelected and often unaccountable) power of the lifetime civil servants that run the day-to-day work. With a lot of turnover in the congress you get more people who don't 'know the ropes' who are then at the mercy of the longtime CS people (and the lobbyists and others who *do* make a career of living at the power center and who are *not* subject to re-election and much public scrutiny)

This is not to say that term-limits on the face of it are not a good idea. Give people a chance to get it, do some good for the country, and go home. However in the process of doing that you *also* need to clean up all the hidden areas of influence that would become even more powerful with a perpetually inexperienced congress

 

[tellner]

It's not absolutely consistent, but I see the logic.

The President is the single most powerful person in government. He has powers far in excess of any other official. After FDR died Dems and Repubs alike decided that there should be limits on how long one man can have that much authority. Washington voluntarily limited himself because he felt that more time in office would cause him to be treated more as a King than a civil servant.

While individual Congressmen and Senators can be quite influential none of them has the ability to become a tyrant individually. He or she can be countered by the other two branches of government and by being outvoted within his or her own Chamber and by the other one.

Since Congress and the Senate are where all spending and all bills originate it is important that the Legislative Branch have the institutional memory and continuity necessary to control the process by which laws are passed and funds are allocated. Otherwise unelected people serving private ends such as lobbyists and staffers wield huge influence and de facto power over the Law and the Purse without having been elected to represent any State or District or the People as a whole.

 

[Xue Sheng]

There are many problems with term limits. One of the most important ones is who isn't affected. There are no term limits for lobbyists. If Congressmen and Senators are limited to a couple go-arounds there is no seniority and no institutional memory. Instead, the process will be increasingly run by the vested special interests who can keep their people around forever.

Lobbyists have been writing the laws, literally, for about ten years. Term limits speed the process. The tiny degree to which our representatives represent our interests will diminish even further.

Why are term limits good when applied to the presidency, but, bad when applied to members of congress?

I am not saying they are good or bad my point is that the majority of people voted that term limits are a good thing and then turned around and voted the incumbent back into office. Point being that voters do not generally know what they are voting for or why they are voting.

But then I have little faith in any politician regardless of party and not much faith in the majority of voters either.

Many of those that politicians campaign to do not vote and and if they did vote politicians pretty much would not be all too happy with the result.

I look at it much the same as Douglas Adams did “the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation” just substitute Politicians for “the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation”

The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy defines the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes,"

But there will be no revolution, which to be honest is probably a good thing because people enjoy complaining much more than actually doing something about anything. And if you vote you have made your statement or at least that is what many believe as they vote for their political party member regardless of his or her stand on anything. And before anyone asks yes I do vote, and no I am not a member of any political party, but I find that I tend to be voting of late for the lesser of 2 evils not the man or woman I think will do a better job but the one I hope will mess things up the least. And I can't tell you how much I wish could actually believe anything any politician says but I can't and I also wish just once I could vote for the one I thought was going to do a better job because I ACTUALLY had to make that choice

But in general politicians have their own interests at heart as well as their pals and not the countries interests, party politics rules the country be damned which proves George Washington was right after all.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I look at it much the same as Douglas Adams did “the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation” just substitute Politicians for “the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation”

:rofl:

 

[tellner]

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

WINSTON CHURCHILL, speech, House of Commons, November 11, 1947.—Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches, 1897–1963, ed. Robert Rhodes James, vol. 7, p. 7566 (1974)

In democracy there is hope for self-correction. If demos are not the polis you're eventually guaranteed rule by tyrants and oligarchs variously dedicated to screwing you by empowering and enriching themselves. You can grumble about the choices you end up with and the choices people make. But at least in a democracy broadly defined the people ultimately have the responsibility for their political fate.

Before people start barking about "Democracy vs. a Republic" let's clarify the terms a bit.

According the Merriam-Webster a republic is:

1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c: a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>

and a democracy is:

1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections2: a political unit that has a democratic government4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

A republic can be democratic. A democracy can be a republic.
No king, representative government elected by the people.

A republic can be non-democratic.
Only hereditary oligarchs select the rulers.

A democracy can exist in a State which is not a republic such as a constitutional monarchy.