Should politicians stay?

[jesse]

Should politicians only be allowed to serve in the office for a limited period of time?
Should they remain with the experienced people or should there be a change of a new generation?
Is change good?

[Vladd44]

How about a combination of our plans.

One body selected totally at random.

One body where the candidates are selected at random, but then those that serve are chosen via an election.

I still need to think about how to select the President. Having the President be the only 'professional politician' would have the tendency to enhance his or her power and influence. This is what happens in my state, where the governor serves full-time, but the legislators are 'citizen legislators' that mostly hold other jobs and only meet for 40 legislative days per year.

A Bicameral parliament would be a good way to go. It would also eliminate the need to have a president at all. Have an election in the "semi-elected" chamber choose a Prime Minister.

Allow either body to call a vote of no confidence in their prime minister at any point after inception.

We don't need a president, it was one of the few things the articles of confederation got right. Kings, Emperors, Presidents, Dictators, call them what you will, they are all the same.

[Vladd44]

No, but take some 19-year old suicidal drug addict and force them into office, who knows what they might do. That's the problem with the lottery idea, you're going to end up with unskilled, uneducated people who don't want to be there and don't have a clue what they're doing. The damage to the country would be catastrophic.

Unless the lottery assigned a majority to the 19yr old drug addict population, I don't see where the problem you are concerned about would arise.

We have drug addicted, alcoholic 50+ year olds in the system, and they haven't nuked us yet.

Sure there will be a few who are in over their heads and most of them will do what incompetent politicians do now, follow a herd. But I do not believe professional politicians are the solution, I would like to see a return to citizen politicians.

[micatala]

How about a combination of our plans.

One body selected totally at random.

One body where the candidates are selected at random, but then those that serve are chosen via an election.

I still need to think about how to select the President. Having the President be the only 'professional politician' would have the tendency to enhance his or her power and influence. This is what happens in my state, where the governor serves full-time, but the legislators are 'citizen legislators' that mostly hold other jobs and only meet for 40 legislative days per year.

A Bicameral parliament would be a good way to go. It would also eliminate the need to have a president at all. Have an election in the "semi-elected" chamber choose a Prime Minister.

Allow either body to call a vote of no confidence in their prime minister at any point after inception.

We don't need a president, it was one of the few things the articles of confederation got right. Kings, Emperors, Presidents, Dictators, call them what you will, they are all the same.

Hmmm. Maybe no President is a good idea. I am not very familiar with how the 'executive branch' works in a Parliamentary system, but obviously there are a number of those that seem to function reasonably well. Certainly the U.S. Presidency is an institution where not a little abuse of power has occurred over the years.

I think as long as we are at it, we could do some reformation of the judiciary. Having the supremes, for example, selected as essentially political appointments is in my view not a good thing. There should, in this case, be some qualifications as far as knowledge of the law, but a more democratic or perhaps random process for selection might help here too.

[Cephus]

Having the supremes, for example, selected as essentially political appointments is in my view not a good thing. There should, in this case, be some qualifications as far as knowledge of the law, but a more democratic or perhaps random process for selection might help here too.

I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing to have it be a political appointment, but it should not be an appointment for life. I see nothing wrong with having it be an appointment for 8-10 years, then you can never serve again.

[ST88]

Should politicians only be allowed to serve in the office for a limited period of time?
Should they remain with the experienced people or should there be a change of a new generation?
Is change good?

Not only is change not good in politics, change is the root of all that is bad with politics. First of all, depite the chucklehead we currently have in the executive branch right now, I think presidents should be elected to 6- or 8-year terms, senators should serve ten years, and representatives should serve four or five years. Right now the numbers are 4, 6, and 2. Six years is a good number for senators, but just to balance things out, it should be more than presidents (and the length of term of the president also means that the vice presidency would be a more important office). The current system causes a continuous cycle of campaigning that is bad for the country. Pandering/Bribery is the real ill in our election process. And if you make campaigns fewer and further between, the concentration of money at election time would have much more scrutiny as to who paid for who.

And they can all run for re-election if they want to for unlimited terms. I have no problem with professional politicians, as long as the media has the guts to cover them correctly.

[Cephus]

Pandering/Bribery is the real ill in our election process. And if you make campaigns fewer and further between, the concentration of money at election time would have much more scrutiny as to who paid for who.

That's why I came up with the following plan.

No one can donate to a specific political campaign. No one. Anyone who wants to donate to the political process does so to a general fund. On a certain date, anyone who has filed the proper paperwork to run for office gets an equal cut of the fund. No one can use their own money to run for office, it's a complete level playing field and there are accountants crawling all over each and every candidate's books.

Television and radio commercials are provided free of charge as a consequence of having an FCC licence. Each candidate receives 2 30-second commercials per day, per broadcast channel on a rotating schedule. They can submit as many different commercials as they like, but they'll only get 2 aired per day. Negative campaigning is immediately rejected. We want to know what the candidate will do, not what the other guy will do.

Debates are manditory. Anyone who does not participate, for whatever reason, will not appear on the ballot. There will be 4 debates, three for presidential candidates and one for the vice-presidential candidates.

Take the money out of the candidate's hands and force them to address issues. It's the only way to get decent people into office.

And they can all run for re-election if they want to for unlimited terms. I have no problem with professional politicians, as long as the media has the guts to cover them correctly.

Which unfortunately, they don't. Having to report real news gets in the way of telling people who Paris Hilton is screwing this week.

[Vladd44]

I have to go with Cephus on this one, but in the interest of Judicial Stability I would suggest a 20 year term and a max age limit.

Not only is change not good in politics, change is the root of all that is bad with politics.

Hey ST88, been a while since I have noticed you active, good to see you, hope all is well.

But, ofc I have to disagree with you. I think you have little to support your view in a system that re-elects at a rate of better than 90%.

Pandering/Bribery is the real ill in our election process. And if you make campaigns fewer and further between, the concentration of money at election time would have much more scrutiny as to who paid for who.

I would be more in favor of VERY frequent elections over fewer ones. Stop government from being involved in most issues and there will be less incentive for people to try to influence them with money.