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?

[McCulloch]

Interesting political question. What does it have to do with Politics and Religion?

I think that politicians stay in office should be limited to being no longer than

1. they can remain getting re-elected
2. they continue to want to serve in the capacity that they have been elected to
3. they continue to be able to serve in the capacity that they have been elected to
4. there is no conflict of interest with any other position being held or sought
5. they are still alive, even if this is not a requirement under point (3)

[Vladd44]

I think we should consider a lottery system.

Elections have become nothing more than money driven publicity campaigns based on personality and clothing selections.

[Cephus]

I think that not only should there be term limits, there should be political limits. You can serve for no more than 10 years in a row in any political capacity before you are required to spend a minimum of 5 years working in the private sector. Most politicians have never had a real job in their lives, they cannot understand how the majority of people live. They really don't know and don't care what their constituents want from them and since voters are largely stupid, anyone who gets into office, stays in office forever unless they screw up big time.

Force change and force understanding. It's the only way to possibly make things better.

[micatala]

I'll make a radical suggestion.

Abolish the profession of politician altogether.

Instead, create a citizens congress. We could run this something like the military. This could be done either under the old 'draft' format or the current 'all-volunteer' format employed in the U.S. Or, we could employ the 'mandatory service' model that some other countries use.

For each election cycle, a certain number of potential candidates would be selected at random for each district (say 10). After allowing people to apply for 'exceptions to service' and replacing any, we have an initial election among the 10 candidates. The top three candidates would get over 20% go on to the next round. If no one gets over 20%, take the top five. If only one gets over 20%, take that candidate and the next three. We can haggle about the details on all of this.

Those elected would be elegible to serve up to six years in the house, 12 years in the Senate.

If anyone has read Le Guin's "Left Hand of Darkness", this idea is somewhat inspired by the society on the moon in the novel.

[Confused]

I don't think going to the extremist militant position is a good idea. But there should be limits on a politicians rule. The problem is, what are the limits. There were some in New York who wanted whatever his name was to stay on after 9/11. They felt he was doing so well they wanted him to continue. Should he been allowed to? If the people were happy with him, why not. Then again, the same people voted for Hilary Clinton to represent them, so that doesn't say much for them.

Seriously, we set limits to attempt to avoid any one individual from attaining to much power. The problem with politics is that this is all politicians want is power (I say this in general, not excluding the possibility that some exceptions exist). I am not sure what a good time length is. But it should definitely be limited. Some get tunnel vision after a certain amount of time and can't see outside the box. Sort of like cold case detectives. Fresh new looks on things can enact positive results.

[Cephus]

Seriously, we set limits to attempt to avoid any one individual from attaining to much power. The problem with politics is that this is all politicians want is power (I say this in general, not excluding the possibility that some exceptions exist). I am not sure what a good time length is. But it should definitely be limited. Some get tunnel vision after a certain amount of time and can't see outside the box. Sort of like cold case detectives. Fresh new looks on things can enact positive results.

That's why politicians should never be allowed to have power. Their pay should be attached to their approval rating. If they're doing a good job, they get paid. If not, they get nothing. Heck, I'm in favor of not paying high-end politicians at all. They get room and board paid for by the citizens, otherwise they don't get paid much, if anything. That'll get the people who want to be politicians for the right reasons into power and those who are just there for power and riches and glory into other lines of work.

[micatala]

Seriously, we set limits to attempt to avoid any one individual from attaining to much power. The problem with politics is that this is all politicians want is power (I say this in general, not excluding the possibility that some exceptions exist). I am not sure what a good time length is. But it should definitely be limited. Some get tunnel vision after a certain amount of time and can't see outside the box. Sort of like cold case detectives. Fresh new looks on things can enact positive results.

That's why politicians should never be allowed to have power. Their pay should be attached to their approval rating. If they're doing a good job, they get paid. If not, they get nothing. Heck, I'm in favor of not paying high-end politicians at all. They get room and board paid for by the citizens, otherwise they don't get paid much, if anything. That'll get the people who want to be politicians for the right reasons into power and those who are just there for power and riches and glory into other lines of work.

This would make things much worse. No pay from the government means they'll be selling themselves to influence peddlers.

Having pay based on approval ratings will mean pandering to people's selfish interests and a congress that would be even more spineless than it is now.

[Confused]

Seriously, we set limits to attempt to avoid any one individual from attaining to much power. The problem with politics is that this is all politicians want is power (I say this in general, not excluding the possibility that some exceptions exist). I am not sure what a good time length is. But it should definitely be limited. Some get tunnel vision after a certain amount of time and can't see outside the box. Sort of like cold case detectives. Fresh new looks on things can enact positive results.

That's why politicians should never be allowed to have power. Their pay should be attached to their approval rating. If they're doing a good job, they get paid. If not, they get nothing. Heck, I'm in favor of not paying high-end politicians at all. They get room and board paid for by the citizens, otherwise they don't get paid much, if anything. That'll get the people who want to be politicians for the right reasons into power and those who are just there for power and riches and glory into other lines of work.

This would make things much worse. No pay from the government means they'll be selling themselves to influence peddlers.

Having pay based on approval ratings will mean pandering to people's selfish interests and a congress that would be even more spineless than it is now.

Are they not already selling themselves? Special interest groups/campaign contributions. They go into election campaigning already in debt to these "donation" groups. We still rely so heavily on oil, why? How is it that we can clone a cow now, yet we still haven't gained ground on an alternative and efficient fuel source?

While I don't necessarily agree with the pay per approval raiting concept, I think that something needs to be done to ensure the officials are serving the people rather then themselves and those they are indebted to from the get go.

[McCulloch]

I think that not only should there be term limits, there should be political limits. You can serve for no more than 10 years in a row in any political capacity before you are required to spend a minimum of 5 years working in the private sector. Most politicians have never had a real job in their lives, they cannot understand how the majority of people live. They really don't know and don't care what their constituents want from them and since voters are largely stupid, anyone who gets into office, stays in office forever unless they screw up big time.

Force change and force understanding. It's the only way to possibly make things better.

But if they really do not understand their constituents, then why would they keep voting them in? If you answer that voters are stupid, then you undermine the whole idea of democracy and maybe we would be better off with a benign dictatorship if the really smart!