i was referring to American politics, but hey...if you wanna call your (ex) PM an idiot be my guestFlecco wrote:
Robert Menzies served 17 years as Australia's prime minister and was one of the most successful we ever had.Schwarzelungen wrote:
and who wants idiots getting elected again and again and again.......
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- What do you think of term limits on elected officials?
Poll
Term limits bad?
| Yes. | 28% | 28% - 13 | ||||
| No. | 58% | 58% - 27 | ||||
| Piss off! | 13% | 13% - 6 | ||||
| Total: 46 | ||||||
Mixed feelings...
Sometimes we get some REALLY good people in government, and I wouldn't want to force them out...but at the same time I think there are far too many career politicians who care more about staying in power than doing the right thing for the nation.
Sometimes we get some REALLY good people in government, and I wouldn't want to force them out...but at the same time I think there are far too many career politicians who care more about staying in power than doing the right thing for the nation.
That's assuming that the people wouldn't vote out someone who wasn't serving their interests.CameronPoe wrote:
Says anyone who isn't interested in monarchy, oligarchy, despotism, dictatorship, corruption, etc. - unlike Russians for instance. It's a vital defence against populism.FEOS wrote:
Says who?CameronPoe wrote:
Term limits are one of the cornerstones of a proper democracy.
But I guess it boils down to what FM said previously: Ideally, bad. Realistically, good.
However, I think a tiered approach is reasonable. Top national leadership: Term limits are necessary. Others: Not so much.
The feasibility of a term limit is dependent upon the position and length of term.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Uhh are we talking about lengths of terms or numbers of terms?
I think both should be limited.
I think both should be limited.
Fuck Israel
Lengths of terms should be, number's shouldn't.Dilbert_X wrote:
Uhh are we talking about lengths of terms or numbers of terms?
I think both should be limited.
If they are good at doing the job why not let them do it for as long as they can keep the public happy?
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
What, so the nation gets to spend 100% of its year in presidential campaigning and transitioning? Great way to get things done. Politician elected, immediately focuses effort on second one-year term.The#1Spot wrote:
It would be nice if there was an presidential election every year.
Because apparently that will lead to the utter destruction of democracy.Flecco wrote:
Lengths of terms should be, number's shouldn't.Dilbert_X wrote:
Uhh are we talking about lengths of terms or numbers of terms?
I think both should be limited.
If they are good at doing the job why not let them do it for as long as they can keep the public happy?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Hasn't destroyed Australia's representative democracy so far.....FEOS wrote:
Because apparently that will lead to the utter destruction of democracy.Flecco wrote:
Lengths of terms should be, number's shouldn't.Dilbert_X wrote:
Uhh are we talking about lengths of terms or numbers of terms?
I think both should be limited.
If they are good at doing the job why not let them do it for as long as they can keep the public happy?
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
But Cam said!Flecco wrote:
Hasn't destroyed Australia's representative democracy so far.....FEOS wrote:
Because apparently that will lead to the utter destruction of democracy.Flecco wrote:
Lengths of terms should be, number's shouldn't.
If they are good at doing the job why not let them do it for as long as they can keep the public happy?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Ooooh that damn potato mucher, what will he say next! [/sarcasm]FEOS wrote:
But Cam said!Flecco wrote:
Hasn't destroyed Australia's representative democracy so far.....FEOS wrote:
Because apparently that will lead to the utter destruction of democracy.
No but seriously I'd like somebody to successfully and logically put forward the case that somehow by giving a person the opportunity to stand for re-election as many times as they want destroys democracy.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
A term limit is only useful to protect the uninformed and lazy. An intelligent populace would vote out those not preforming their duties properly.
There is no logical reason to force someone out of office if the population does not want it so.
There is no logical reason to force someone out of office if the population does not want it so.
Last edited by DrunkFace (2008-11-15 10:43:57)
Therein lies my biggest problem with the democratic system.DrunkFace wrote:
A term limit is only useful to protect the uninformed and lazy.
Many people are uninvolved/lazy/apathetic.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
QFT... oh snap... new sig...Kmarion wrote:
Top level politicians have mastered the art of campaigning. Without a mandated term limit it would be the same stagnant ideology getting "the funding". Sometimes you have to flush the toilet water.. even if it's shit going back in.
Because you get a positive reinforcement loop, the longer they are in the more bribes/donations they get to spend on their next campaign, and the more skilled they get at milking the system eg hopping to safer seats as opposed to doing their job.If they are good at doing the job why not let them do it for as long as they can keep the public happy?
Surely the principles are identical, please explain why you are both for and against the argument.FEOS wrote:
However, I think a tiered approach is reasonable. Top national leadership: Term limits are necessary. Others: Not so much.
Fuck Israel
I already did. I'm not going to repeat myself because you don't bother to read.Dilbert_X wrote:
Surely the principles are identical, please explain why you are both for and against the argument.FEOS wrote:
However, I think a tiered approach is reasonable. Top national leadership: Term limits are necessary. Others: Not so much.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Nope, this is all you said so far.FEOS wrote:
I already did. I'm not going to repeat myself because you don't bother to read.
Please explain why a tiered approach is reasonable.FEOS wrote:
However, I think a tiered approach is reasonable. Top national leadership: Term limits are necessary. Others: Not so much.
Fuck Israel
You are right in that sense but term limits do provide an extra layer of defence against corrupt leaders who are reluctant to relinquish power.DrunkFace wrote:
A term limit is only useful to protect the uninformed and lazy. An intelligent populace would vote out those not preforming their duties properly.
There is no logical reason to force someone out of office if the population does not want it so.
That's what Vice Presidents are there for in a way... if you like the work of the incumbent party let the next in command take over after the term limit and so on and so on.
I also said this:Dilbert_X wrote:
Nope, this is all you said so far.FEOS wrote:
I already did. I'm not going to repeat myself because you don't bother to read.Please explain why a tiered approach is reasonable.FEOS wrote:
However, I think a tiered approach is reasonable. Top national leadership: Term limits are necessary. Others: Not so much.
Term limits on national leadership (ie, President) prevent de facto dictatorships like Egypt, Saddam-era Iraq, Syria, et al.The feasibility of a term limit is dependent upon the position and length of term.
Not so critical for legislative representatives (ie, House and Senate in the US) as they don't wield the same kind of power individually.
The same argument applies at the state and local levels, as well (executive vs. legislative).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
To what?Dilbert_X wrote:
Uhh are we talking about lengths of terms or numbers of terms?
I think both should be limited.
*performance?
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2008-11-17 20:01:59)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Finally, thx.FEOS wrote:
Term limits on national leadership (ie, President) prevent de facto dictatorships like Egypt, Saddam-era Iraq, Syria, et al.
Not so critical for legislative representatives (ie, House and Senate in the US) as they don't wield the same kind of power individually.
The problem for me is representatives are closer to the public and more available for corruption, which is a postive feedback loop.
I also despise the kind of career politicians who brown-nose themselves into a safe seat and then do bugger all for their contstituents, they just draw their pay and pension while sitting on the boards of a hundred companies.
Simple time limit.DDBrinson1 wrote:
To what?
*performance?
Four year terms, maximum of two terms.
Maybe if they get an increased majority they could get one more term.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-17 23:32:12)
Fuck Israel
Our Representatives only serve two years at a time, and there's a pretty decent turnover rate.Dilbert_X wrote:
Finally, thx.FEOS wrote:
Term limits on national leadership (ie, President) prevent de facto dictatorships like Egypt, Saddam-era Iraq, Syria, et al.
Not so critical for legislative representatives (ie, House and Senate in the US) as they don't wield the same kind of power individually.
The problem for me is representatives are closer to the public and more available for corruption, which is a postive feedback loop.
I also despise the kind of career politicians who brown-nose themselves into a safe seat and then do bugger all for their contstituents, they just draw their pay and pension while sitting on the boards of a hundred companies.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Happened in FloridaFlecco wrote:
Do you honestly think any politicians would vote for a limit on their own cushy jobs?Dilbert_X wrote:
I think all elected officials should be subject to a two term limit.
It would cut down on corruption, feather-bedding and career politicians.
It would mean politicians would need to stay connected with the real world.
...
Thought not.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Not enough of a turnover. They still tend to try to build little power networks, and to consolodate power. Limit them to ten years.FEOS wrote:
Our Representatives only serve two years at a time, and there's a pretty decent turnover rate.Dilbert_X wrote:
Finally, thx.FEOS wrote:
Term limits on national leadership (ie, President) prevent de facto dictatorships like Egypt, Saddam-era Iraq, Syria, et al.
Not so critical for legislative representatives (ie, House and Senate in the US) as they don't wield the same kind of power individually.
The problem for me is representatives are closer to the public and more available for corruption, which is a postive feedback loop.
I also despise the kind of career politicians who brown-nose themselves into a safe seat and then do bugger all for their contstituents, they just draw their pay and pension while sitting on the boards of a hundred companies.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- What do you think of term limits on elected officials?