Comment by theptip | Hacker News Reader

Comment by theptip | Hacker News Reader

> FIRST, propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.

I've debated this approach with friends in the past. From a game-theory perspective, does this promote or hinder political corruption?

I'm inclined to believe that term limits would actually encourage corruption.

1) If senators have to find a job after 8 years, surely that encourages the revolving door between industry and government, as they need to find another job .

2) If excellent and popular politicians have to be replaced before they fall from popularity, and it still costs a lot of money to get elected, then candidates will become more beholden to special interests (as they can't campaign on their track record or political capital). This would also dilute the overall quality of legislators.

3) If the average candidate has little or no political record, then how can we root out those who are beholden to special interests? At least currently we can look at who they have taken money from over the years in the public records that are available. If every candidate is a blank slate, who hasn't been subjected to oversight, it will be much easier for a candidate to be secretly bought without the public having a chance to spot it.

The real problem is not that there exists career politicians, it's that they experience extreme conflicts of interest due to being permitted to engage in insider trading [1], that they are not restricted from taking jobs in the industries they regulated while in government [2], and that there is a massive flow of money into politician's campaigns from special interests [3].

A more credible solution to these problems is advanced by Represent.us: http://anticorruptionact.org/whats-in-the-act/

[1]: https://theintercept.com/2015/05/07/congress-argues-cant-inv... [2]: https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/ [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

The thing I worry about more here (amazingly) is the answer to the question "If representatives don't have enough experience to write new laws then who will write them?"

You also get people like Feinstein[1] because of the lack of term limits.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Mass_surveill...

If you're arguing for term limits, you can make your case stronger by pointing out senators and representatives from both parties.

I'm a non american who is talking on the internet who has no power over this stuff. Feinstien came to mind because she in long term and I saw her stance in the Snowden issue. There are probably plenty of senators and congresscritters you can point out in the same way.

I approve of many Dems, and disapprove strongly of Feinstein, so I'm sympathetic to the thrust of that argument... but I fear that might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the only result of enacting term limits was Feinstein getting kicked out, I'd be all for it. But it affects far more politicians than her.

The natural counterargument is that there are probably other ways of dealing with the Feinstein problem without the nuclear option of term limits.

Specifically, the party doesn't field a credible contender to her, as she's right up in the core of the party elite. "Top 2" was supposed to encourage challenges from contenders similar to the party incumbents, but I think we'd be better served by a proportional representation system (STV or similar).

And if the core problem is that the party parachutes in stooges and backs them with the full weight of the party's campaign funding and infrastructure, then I don't see how term limits solve the problem; out with Feinstein, in with another party-blessed elitist who only cares about surveillance when it is used on fellow members of the elite [1]. I'm sure they can find someone who has not served a day in public service to carry on her agenda.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/28/nsa-surveillan...

Ok but what if the term limit was, say, 16 years for the House and 18 for the Senate?

It's not clear to me why there is a magic time that someone suddenly becomes ineligible for public service. I'm sure many politicians keep getting better at their job, even between year 16 and year 32.

Or even if we assume an asymptote of quality improvement over time, surely we want to have more politician-years spent during the peak of their quality, rather than in their first 4/8/16 when their output is less?

The idea of term limits implies that politician's utility becomes negative at some point in time, and that just doesn't fit with my understanding of how negotiating and learning how to build consensus works.

I'd love to see some hard data either way on this one.

It's scary really. Industry has the profits to pay for the marketing anyone needs to get elected, however it could take a 'lifetime' for someone who's educated and aware enough to be naturally get into power.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com