Change FPTP to a system that actually encourages people to vote for whom they prefer? Maybe in local elections, in a few places.
End gerrymandering with mathematically fair electoral maps? Courts will throw that out.
Fix campaign finance? Congress will repeal Citizens United only when all the billionaires are dead and there’s currently a gun to their heads. Absolutely not a second sooner.
Whatever happened to that Hawaiian law that countered citizen’s united. Seems like states could be allowed to make their own laws for their elections to some extent, and maybe that is a way to make it happen.
All are problems which inhibit a fair election. All are difficult to change to. None of the problem are fixed by placing a hard limit on terms.
And not to you directly, but I got a lot of downvotes on my post, and yet nothing rebutting it. This is why we’re stuck here. As an American I’ll say that it’s so American to just sit it out and hope next time things will be better.
I’ve noticed the trend is that even if everything you say is true, if you appear against something people think they want, you get downvotes. So in this case they are just saying they want term limits anyway. Ok. I mean I do to. I know it doesn’t solve the problems, but personally I do think it helps some.
But I am also for all the other things that really do solve the problems, they are just much less likely to be possible.
That makes sense, I suppose. It also is why using the downvote for opinion instead of if it’s a relevant post muddles the effect. There’s no middle vote of, “sort of agree, but with conditions” arrow. Which is why adding comments, like you and BLHW did, is better than any arrow vote. Thanks for that.
I disagree on term limits. I do think too many in Congress are past their prime, maybe not just in age but in generational thinking of what’s needed NOW. New blood, new ideas are needed. But for the few that can adapt with the needs of society, for them to be kicked out because of age or time in office solely because of a rule and not because of their abilities would be a loss. Granted, it’s a few, but that’s a few we can’t afford to lose. If we can use the built in term limits of an election to remove the right ones, that’s far better than a blanket law.
What would really be helpful too is a way to do a vote of no confidence. Analogy: If you’re doing a poor job at work, the boss isn’t going to wait until next hiring session to decide what to do with you, he lets you know first and then gets rid of the problem if there’s no change.
Well sure, term limits are a blunt instrument. And there are always exceptions. But I just think the overall will be a net positive.
If they are still mentally solid, they can take positions in the administration or for their state government. Those who are able and willing can always find a way to contribute.
I guess nobody’s really interested in quibbling over which reforms are correct and desirable when it seems like, politically, none of them are on the table for the foreseeable future anyway. We’ll talk turkey after the Nuremberg trials, yeah?
But for what it’s worth, I take your point. It’s a hard sell during the decade everyone learned the word ‘gerontocracy’ all of a sudden, though. Sentiment is against the older generations, and not entirely without cause.
Change FPTP to a system that actually encourages people to vote for whom they prefer? Maybe in local elections, in a few places.
End gerrymandering with mathematically fair electoral maps? Courts will throw that out.
Fix campaign finance? Congress will repeal Citizens United only when all the billionaires are dead and there’s currently a gun to their heads. Absolutely not a second sooner.
Whatever happened to that Hawaiian law that countered citizen’s united. Seems like states could be allowed to make their own laws for their elections to some extent, and maybe that is a way to make it happen.
That’s hopeful, anyway. Wish more states were with it.
All are problems which inhibit a fair election. All are difficult to change to. None of the problem are fixed by placing a hard limit on terms.
And not to you directly, but I got a lot of downvotes on my post, and yet nothing rebutting it. This is why we’re stuck here. As an American I’ll say that it’s so American to just sit it out and hope next time things will be better.
I’ve noticed the trend is that even if everything you say is true, if you appear against something people think they want, you get downvotes. So in this case they are just saying they want term limits anyway. Ok. I mean I do to. I know it doesn’t solve the problems, but personally I do think it helps some. But I am also for all the other things that really do solve the problems, they are just much less likely to be possible.
That makes sense, I suppose. It also is why using the downvote for opinion instead of if it’s a relevant post muddles the effect. There’s no middle vote of, “sort of agree, but with conditions” arrow. Which is why adding comments, like you and BLHW did, is better than any arrow vote. Thanks for that.
I disagree on term limits. I do think too many in Congress are past their prime, maybe not just in age but in generational thinking of what’s needed NOW. New blood, new ideas are needed. But for the few that can adapt with the needs of society, for them to be kicked out because of age or time in office solely because of a rule and not because of their abilities would be a loss. Granted, it’s a few, but that’s a few we can’t afford to lose. If we can use the built in term limits of an election to remove the right ones, that’s far better than a blanket law.
What would really be helpful too is a way to do a vote of no confidence. Analogy: If you’re doing a poor job at work, the boss isn’t going to wait until next hiring session to decide what to do with you, he lets you know first and then gets rid of the problem if there’s no change.
Well sure, term limits are a blunt instrument. And there are always exceptions. But I just think the overall will be a net positive. If they are still mentally solid, they can take positions in the administration or for their state government. Those who are able and willing can always find a way to contribute.
I guess nobody’s really interested in quibbling over which reforms are correct and desirable when it seems like, politically, none of them are on the table for the foreseeable future anyway. We’ll talk turkey after the Nuremberg trials, yeah?
But for what it’s worth, I take your point. It’s a hard sell during the decade everyone learned the word ‘gerontocracy’ all of a sudden, though. Sentiment is against the older generations, and not entirely without cause.