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

[Nurvus]

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 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.

We should have more people with actual knowledge of various sectors of the industry to properly run the country - not merely well spoken individuals who are good at making promises.

[caervek]

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.

Actually that is the case in most modern democracies, the USA was quick to laugh when Russia changed it's two term policy and then the people elected Putin again, but in reality it was the USA with the silly system and Russia were just fixing theirs.

We didn't complain when Churchill came out of retirement and got re-elected.

[schwarzkopf]

We should have more people with actual knowledge of various sectors of the industry to properly run the country - not merely well spoken individuals who are good at making promises.

Indeed - as I said, just not any random person as the current US cabinet has.

[NYC17]

We have term limits. They're called elections. Arbitrary year restrictions are a dumb, nothingness solution to the problem of a disinterested, disenfranchised, and/or lazy electorate.

I'll pass, thanks.

[Barnabas]

We have term limits. They're called elections. Arbitrary year restrictions are a dumb, nothingness solution to the problem of a disinterested, disenfranchised, and/or lazy electorate.

I'll pass, thanks.

So that means we can keep trump for 12 years?

[NYC17]

So that means we can keep trump for 12 years?

It means we could have kept Obama for 12 years.

What's the point of your question?

[Barnabas]

It means we could have kept Obama for 12 years.

What's the point of your question?

Could've tried but I don't think he would've won.

[Tijuana]

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?

I would term limit every single position in politics to two year terms. You get one term, and one do over. If you can't get your agenda through by then, too bad. There is NO GAIN to the citizens of leaders who have no term limits. The 100 Senators are not the only humans in the US who are smart enough to make a decision on an idea and then choose to raise or not raise their hand in support. They don't even read, let alone write the bills they vote on. They have the staffers do that. Letting them have unlimited terms just leads to laziness and corruption.

[NYC17]

Could've tried but I don't think he would've won.

Obama would have easily beat Trump, but alas, we'll never know.

I'm still wondering what the point of your question was...

[Barnabas]

Obama would have easily beat Trump, but alas, we'll never know.

I'm still wondering what the point of your question was...

it was sarcasm

[Deleted]

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.

The best part of this is the implied soft incentive for staying in your own community, really.

[NYC17]

it was sarcasm

Well to answer your poor attempt at sarcasm, yes if that's what people voted for then 12 years of Trump it would be. In that scenario it would mean that Democrats couldn't sell the public on anyone being better than one of the worst people, let alone presidents, this country has the displeasure of experiencing in the form of Trump.

Thems the consequences.

[Holofernes]

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? tell me which, i only know this limit in the united states.

[Jaransan]

In Canada, the Ministries (of Education, Travel, Defense etc) All have two leaders. One NON PARTISAN person who remains with the Crown Corporation and is the boss more or less, who carries the expertise - and one Government official put in place by the Prime Minister after election. This means more or less that the different ministries are always being run by someone competent, even if they're getting talked down to by whoever the nominal boss is at the time.

It's not perfect of course - but a similar fix for major decision making positions seems reasonable. Say, the Mayor's office requires two officials who are nominally his secretaries - both from opposite parties, that don't rotate out when the Mayor switches. Every new mayor gets the benefit of not making blatantly boneheaded decisions without being told before hand by someone, but you don't get silver spooned career politicians who don't understand normal people anymore holding power for very long.

That's the big problem I think - look at a lineup of the dicks in any given parliament or senate. middle age and old age people. Healthcare is a beautiful thing but people are living too fucking long. Now you've got a crap top of young people running around waiting to change things, or thinking completely differently than their predecessors, but instead of DYING and passing on the mantle of command, these old fucks just keep ticking. Our governments are waaaaaaaaaaaaay behind our actual populace in terms of worldview.

[Deleted]

Have you experience with people?

I don't trust a random human to be smarter than a lamp, and I'm not even thinking of a bright one.

Yes. I also have experience with politicians. I know who would be less shit.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Your ministers have experience and qualifications for their roles? Im happy for you. This has rarely been the case in the uk of course.

[TwoNineMarine]

And not soon enough.

I agree.

Although sadly I think it'll take some next level craziness before anything of note is done.