Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

socaTsocaTsocaT t1_itpr2a7 wrote

Pardon my ignorance, but aren't having term limits a good thing?

6

HowManyMeeses t1_itpwgxb wrote

The issue is fairly complicated. In major elections with wide media coverage, term limits are great. In small local elections where only a tiny percentage of the population can get someone elected, term limits can shift power to the wrong groups.

22

mattfouse t1_itpzeju wrote

so is what your saying, it’s a bad thing because the candidate you don’t like might win? This makes zero sense.

−17

HowManyMeeses t1_itq0a19 wrote

"Should I vote for the measure that's more likely to result in candidates I don't like winning?"

This seems like a pretty straightforward "no" to me.

That's not exactly what I was getting at though. By "the wrong people" I'm talking about people that don't accurately represent an area.

If there are a lot of people from an area voting, then it's more difficult for bad actors to win elections. This is why I fully support term limits for higher levels of government. Until I had these conversations, I was mostly on the fence about it for local elections.

At the end of the day, if few people from an area vote in an election (as is typical for most local elections), then it's easier for bad actors to win.

4

YoYoMoMa t1_itqb79u wrote

No.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reasons-to-oppose-congressional-term-limits/

https://crcmich.org/press-releases/twenty-five-years-later-term-limits-have-failed-to-deliver-on-their-promise-but-theyre-probably-here-to-stay

Why do people think politics is the one place where you want inexperienced people over experienced people (especially something as complex as legislating)? And why do people want to rob themselves of choice?

15

Ambitious-Intern-928 t1_itqwn24 wrote

What we actually want is people that build a career AND THEN go into politics. On a federal, state, and city level, we don't get many people that proved themselves by building a successful career. We get the numbnuts that can ONLY make a career out of (bad) public service. And honestly, who do you see being top dog at a company for 10 years? It's pretty rare. In the business world, talent moves in, talent moves on, younger talent with fresh ideas take over. In politics, people make a name for themselves and ride that to the grave.

−5

sit_down_man t1_itr3bbi wrote

I’d vastly prefer someone who built a career in politics, specifically by winning local smaller elections and moving up versus someone who built a career in the private sector. If anything, someone who’s been working in the private sector longer will prob do a far worse job imo

9

Ambitious-Intern-928 t1_itr9lqc wrote

Name some...that aren't contributing to the status quo. Like our mayor who I actually liked at one point until he started blatantly disrespecting people who dare to question him. Been in city politics his ENTIRE life and he's more worried about maintaining those relationships than holding people accountable. It doesn't matter what any city agency does, he always gives his "trust and support" even when there's obvious wrongdoing.

−5

Willothwisp2303 t1_itqvx7d wrote

Requiring new politicians with new campaigns every so many years gives them a bigger focus on campaigning. That gives big $$$ donors a bigger voice. That gives the Smith shitheads more say, and more favors. That means you get less say and more shit.

So no, it's not good.

8

If_I_must t1_itryhpp wrote

It sure seems like it would be, but it's been pretty bad in the states that have tried it.

2