Should there be a maximum number of years you can be active in politics?

[JohnBrown1917]

Why not? Because they might not be any good at it, lol?

They'd be far worse than our current ministers, thats for sure. Not to mention you don't get to vote for policies.

[Narwal]

On one hand, I see the agruments for term limits.

On the other hand, these limits would be an incentive to make as much money as possible in a limited time and would disincentivise doing anything useful in the last term.

There should be tougher regulation on money in politics. It's a public service, not a job. Unfortunately, the only ones with the power to make those changes are the politicians themselves.

[h4rr0d]

The maximum I'd leave unlimited, but I think only people who were working in private sector for x amount of time should be able to become politicians.

[Kithelle]

On one hand, I see the agruments for term limits.

On the other hand, these limits would be an incentive to make as much money as possible in a limited time and would disincentivise doing anything useful in the last term.

But that happens even without term limits...

[zenkai]

There should be tougher regulation on money in politics. It's a public service, not a job. Unfortunately, the only ones with the power to make those changes are the politicians themselves.

I was going to say the exact same thing. Politics has now been about how much money they can get for their campaign. I think not only should corporations not be allowed to donate but also there should be a limit on how much you can spend, it should be a level playing field for all.

[Daelak]

What's polarizing about acknowledging Anthropomorphic Climate Change? What's polarizing about public investment into new technology and economic sectors for the 21st century?

[Flarelaine]

But that happens even without term limits...

Weeeell, yeah... but not the same. If you can hope for a next term, you are motivated to earn it.

[Daelak]

I was going to say the exact same thing. Politics has now been about how much money they can get for their campaign. I think not only should corporations not be allowed to donate but also there should be a limit on how much you can spend, it should be a level playing field for all.

Bernie Sanders has advocated for a federal campaign finance reform law in the past.

- - - Updated - - -

I was going to say the exact same thing. Politics has now been about how much money they can get for their campaign. I think not only should corporations not be allowed to donate but also there should be a limit on how much you can spend, it should be a level playing field for all.

Bernie Sanders has advocated for a federal campaign finance reform law in the past.

[Barnabas]

I think the term "career politician" will trigger negative association in pretty much every country these days.
What if politicians couldnt be active in politics for more than a fixed number of years?

For example 8 years max for a Minister, Senator etc. This could be extended if someone would move into a presidential function after that, but otherwise out with them.

This way you would keep things "fresh" and make it hard for them to stay in office forever and keeping seats filled for decades, which is potentially also damaging to a country and it's people.

What do you think?

Term limits don't do anything when you have a segment of voters that are angry and force politicians to take hard line positions so they keep their jobs. The new person will want their second or third term. So you really haven't solved anything by doing this. Should we have people in their 80's serving in government as judges or in congress or president that are out of touch with the mainstream? No they should retire and we need age limits. I think age limits would be more beneficial than terms.

[caervek]

What do you think?

No, terrible idea, people in a democracy should be free to elect whoever they want as many times as they want.

[willtron]

I think it's a bad idea:
1 - As was said above, incentivizes making as much money as possible, rather than actually helping the country.
2 - It also incentivizes working towards making sure you are replaced by a family member or friend.
3 - The honest ones - if any - will probably never get any work done due to being up against those who want to make quick money.
4 - It also usually means early(er) retirement benefits. More tax going nowhere useful. More leeches.

If politicians work for 12 years and retire, imagine how many politicians are living off taxes.
And I mean living WELL off taxes.
Leeches everywhere.
Whatever good they might have done, is down the drain once they retire.

A lot of that is fixed by change to their pay and their government pension. They shouldn't be making bank; they should be working for the people. At least in American politics, money has far too much power.

[Holofernes]

in a democracy, vote decides. not years. So yep having the same guy chancelor /president for 24 years is ok if he gets voted 7 times in a row. Having a limit on office is undemocratic, it denies people of the possibillity to vote for a candidate only because he reached an arbitrary time limit.

[Ivanstone]

In a given level of politics yes, with shorter terms for higher levels.

Local (County etc) : Life time
State : 24 years
Federal (Congress, Executive, Judiciary) : 12 years

So the more institutional knowledge required the shorter the term limit? Unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists for the win.

[willtron]

No, terrible idea, people in a democracy should be free to elect whoever they want as many times as they want.

The prospect of Donald Trump forever. That's why that is a bad idea.

- - - Updated - - -

in a democracy, vote decides. not years. So yep having the same guy chancelor /president for 24 years is ok if he gets voted 7 times in a row. Having a limit on office is undemocratic, it denies people of the possibillity to vote for a candidate only because he reached an arbitrary time limit.

And in most modern democracies that's not the case for good reason. The main types of people that stay in power for that amount of time are Warlords, the corrupt and the religious.

[Kithelle]

Weeeell, yeah... but not the same. If you can hope for a next term, you are motivated to earn it.

Sometimes maybe...sometimes not...

These career politicians can sometimes win with no effort if there is no one decent to run against them.

[Nurvus]

A lot of that is fixed by change to their pay and their government pension. They shouldn't be making bank; they should be working for the people. At least in American politics, money has far too much power.

Although I agree with you, changing their pay is an extreme uphill battle.

If politicians got a lower base pay and retirement, but also got "better pay" for "actually getting things done", it would be for the best.
But in any case, there should never be a raw maximum number of years.
Perhaps a maximum number of years without getting anything meaningful done.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

You'd have to re-build this shit from the ground up.

And not soon enough.

[JohnBrown1917]

The prospect of Donald Trump forever. That's why that is a bad idea.

- - - Updated - - -



And in most modern democracies that's not the case for good reason. The main types of people that stay in power for that amount of time are Warlords, the corrupt and the religious.

Most modern democracies don't have term limits.

[schwarzkopf]

So the more institutional knowledge required the shorter the term limit? Unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists for the win.

Shorter the term limit, the idea is they get experience in the lower levels of politics first - just like anyone else.

So you work in local for 10 years, you work in state for 20 years, then finish off with 12 years federal.

That's 42 years service.

- - - Updated - - -

Most modern democracies don't have term limits.

Most modern democracies don't elect individuals with huge power, they elect groups of people.
They also don't allow any random person access to the higher halls of power.

e.g Australia has no equivalent to President.

[caervek]

The prospect of Donald Trump forever. That's why that is a bad idea.

So you think instead of letting people make the wrong choice they should have options forced upon them?