> FIRST propose a constitutional amendment to
impose term limits on all members of Congress.
If he does this alone, then he's made a huge impact.
I'm really concerned he might be assassinated.
If he does this alone, then he's made a huge impact.
I'm really concerned he might be assassinated.
On top of that, this significantly weakens congress's position when raising funds for elections. They've got to dance to the right tune quickly, they can't slowly ramp up a career and build a brand. With their bargaining power lowered...ugh.
America is probably going to get totally fucked now. And no, not necessarily because of this. But this policy proposal is the best Trump could come up with? This isn't even half-baked, it's fucking flour in a pot and he's calling it cookies. How can this be called a contract.
This is not to say that term limits are bad. But just term limits alone may not be enough to curb corruption.
Career politicians are the worst.
Completely disconnected from the people because the only thing they know is how to get elected and work the system for personal enrichment and job security.
They help pass laws which affect people and the economy they've never participated in. The bad ones are hard to get rid of. Kind of like tenured professors. So you might lose an exceptional one from time to time but they can switch houses or branches in that case.
If you like no term limits, why do we have one for the President?
It's a fair point. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the 'term limits' mean, whether they are similar to presidential term limits (my original assumption) or not.
The question I find myself wondering is:
Is the range of possible upside equivalent to the range of possible downside?
My intuition is that there's a limited amount marginal improvements except in special cases but the potential downside goes from bad to worse to flat out catastrophic.
Maybe it is like how most programmers can improve a code base, but a single bad actor could fuck it to hell and back with greater ease.
I'm looking at you Dianne Feinstein. Evil bat-witch.
No single action could increase the power of lobbyists and unelected officials not directly accountable to voters more than this, it's true. It would be an enormous impact.
I think corruption is like a weed. It grows when you become acclimatized to your environment and start to exploit it.
Term limits get us closer to a part-sortition. From the wiki:
Author James Wycliffe Headlam explains that the Athenian Council (500 administrators randomly selected), would commit occasional mistakes such as levying taxes that were too high. Additionally, from time to time, some in the Council would improperly make small quantities of money from their civic positions. However, "systematic oppression and organized fraud were impossible". These Greeks recognized that sortition broke up factions, diluted power, and gave positions to such a large number of disparate people that they would all keep an eye on each other making collusion fairly rare.
Reducing the average level of experience in the particular legislative institution, and in legislative affairs generally, of the first group increase the relative advantage in systematic knowledge and effectiveness of the latter two groups compared to the first.
Term limits aren't sortition (it's not random, and political parties and the donor class are actively involved in choosing who stands for seats and how much support they have, so, the effects you point to in sortition of breaking up factionsome and reducing corruption simply aren't present.) And, in any case, the level of complexity of a modern nation of 300+ million people different considerably from that of ancient Athens.
That's a good point. How would you solve for X here?
> Term limits aren't sortition (it's not random, and political parties and the donor class are actively involved in choosing who stands for seats and how much support they have, so, the effects you point to in sortition of breaking up factionsome and reducing corruption simply aren't present.)
I was thinking broadly of the system being more or less organized and how in some way incompetence may be less truly dangerous than a bad actor abusing the system.
How about we simply put restrictions on politicians and their interaction with mass media? This many minutes on television, paid for by the State so you don't have to scrounge around for cash? That is just a half-baked example, I take it you understand what I mean by it.
Corruption is a problem in every country but I don't think lobbying and donors exert such an influence in my country Ireland (could be naive here!).
> in any case, the level of complexity of a modern nation of 300+ million people different considerably from that of ancient Athens.
Ha! True. We need a new OS, that is for sure. That is why Patri Friedman (seasteading) has so many of my sympathies.
There's other stuff he can do on his own authority (e.g., a hiring freeze), or that requires the power of the presidency (e.g., nominating a justice).
>I'm really concerned he might be assassinated.
Over a toothless regulation that affects only a small percentage of Congress and mostly guys ready to retire anyway?