Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakeonthemove | Hacker News Reader

I know a lot of people believe Putin saved Russia, but I gotta say, having the same people in power for too long is never a good thing: they get comfortable, they lose their focus, things get stagnant and everything goes downhill from there.

There's a reason why the US does not allow the same person to be president more than twice in their life (although that doesn't stop them from putting someone they trust in power).

View on HN

Would you have someone with a vested interest in the country running it, or someone who gets elected, steals from the country and runs off without consequence after 8 years? ;)

Well in that case, why not just have the tsars back. Because that worked out so splendidly well for russia last time, now didn't it.

Compare the Tsars to what came after the Tsars and since the Tsars. :)

I guess you prefer having someone who does not get elected and steals for 24 years in a row better?

Is there any particular reason you believe Russia is unable to elect someone who doesn't steal from the country and is also not a borderline autocrat? I know the track record isn't great, but I'm curious if you reckon that's inherent.

Seems like it's inherent to me, and I really can't describe why. It just seems that in terms of internal politics, Russia has always been very dark and bleak. :(

U.S. didn't have such a regulation until the 50s, before that it was merely tradition.

They put it there because many people got scared of a president staying for too long after Franklin Delano Roosevelt had won its fourth presidential term. They wanted to prevent a president from becoming a dictator.

I am convinced that the reason most democracies have limited terms of presidency is because if one elected official can't be bought then the next one will be (or in the case of US elections - they ALL get bought!) This is why voting for people is bullshit (in my opinion). The government should be a bunch of invisible (but accountable) professionals academically trained in governance, laws, finances, foreign policy...etc with the only mandate to lead a succesful socially and globally responsible country. But if you really want to get all democratic about it, the "people" should vote on very broad issues to determine the intellectual values and the future direction of the country.

I.e. china?

Chinese people don't vote on issues.

This sounds more like Switzerland.

The problem with academics is that all of their knowledge is theory, they have no practical experience. I think you should only be able to spend a maximum 1 year in government, you should not be able to make a career out of working in government.

Single term limits might help.

i think your reasoning here is kinda backwards: "To do a good job in government, you need experience. Therefore, you should only be allowed to work at it for one year."

An electrician also needs a lot of experience before he can be good at his job. But he doesn't get a max of one year to accomplish mastery. He can shadow an experienced master electrician in an apprenticeship role for years before he actually takes charge.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com