Christian Mango is 10 years old. In April, his fourth-grade teacher at Canterbury School in Greensboro, North Carolina, gave the class an assignment. Write a ... Read More
Nah. Term limits help prevent the creation and perpetuation of “good old boy” clubs. Quite honestly, it is better to have an inexperienced but well meaning rando, than an expert who makes a habit of lining their pockets with their experience.
Term limits don’t prevent anything, they just make the club slightly larger. The US is proof of this, we have term limits on the vast majority of elected positions, still organizedly corrupt in favor of the ruling class on all fronts.
Term limits are not the solution, they are part of a solution. Term limits alone wouldn’t work without other parts of the political process being reformed. For example, First Past the Post voting makes it much harder for independent candidates to get a fair shot.
The United States needs huge reforms across the board, because much of our processes were built 250 years ago.
Term limits are at best a neutral impact, a rotating cast isn’t any more likely to be competent or less likely to be corrupt. If an official is bad at their job then vote them out, if they aren’t then forcing them out just for the sake of change is directly counterproductive. It’s really just that simple.
No, the problem with keeping people in office, is that they get to establish strong networks of interests. By disrupting this and adding social uncertainty from unfamiliar people, we make it harder for corruption to become baked into society. Corruption is very much a social behavior that relies upon trust - the trust that the other guy won’t snitch on you, if the horsetrading is profitable.
We make it harder to establish that trust among thieves, by swapping people often.
Nah. Term limits help prevent the creation and perpetuation of “good old boy” clubs. Quite honestly, it is better to have an inexperienced but well meaning rando, than an expert who makes a habit of lining their pockets with their experience.
Term limits don’t prevent anything, they just make the club slightly larger. The US is proof of this, we have term limits on the vast majority of elected positions, still organizedly corrupt in favor of the ruling class on all fronts.
Term limits are not the solution, they are part of a solution. Term limits alone wouldn’t work without other parts of the political process being reformed. For example, First Past the Post voting makes it much harder for independent candidates to get a fair shot.
The United States needs huge reforms across the board, because much of our processes were built 250 years ago.
Term limits are at best a neutral impact, a rotating cast isn’t any more likely to be competent or less likely to be corrupt. If an official is bad at their job then vote them out, if they aren’t then forcing them out just for the sake of change is directly counterproductive. It’s really just that simple.
No, the problem with keeping people in office, is that they get to establish strong networks of interests. By disrupting this and adding social uncertainty from unfamiliar people, we make it harder for corruption to become baked into society. Corruption is very much a social behavior that relies upon trust - the trust that the other guy won’t snitch on you, if the horsetrading is profitable.
We make it harder to establish that trust among thieves, by swapping people often.