Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sllewgh t1_ivllgml wrote

Reply to comment by pk10534 in Fox attack on Baltimore? by AlwaysGrateful710

Sure, you can pass undemocratic policy democratically. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking about the merits of the policy. Why should this choice be taken from voters?

−1

pk10534 t1_ivlm486 wrote

The choice is not being taken from voters; they are absolutely able to amend or change any part of the state constitution either through referendum like this proposition or through their candidates to the state legislature. And by that logic, any law or bill passed removes a choice for voters. If voters truly feel the policy needs to be changed, they can enact that change again. You’re treating this like it’s not able to be changed once it gets voted on and that just isn’t true

3

sllewgh t1_ivlmxry wrote

You're dodging the question. If this passes, voters will not be able to reelect someone they might want to continue to represent them. We will be taking away that choice. Why is that good or necessary?

1

pk10534 t1_ivlppux wrote

I’ve answered the question several times already, I don’t know how many more you’d like me to repeat it: I don’t think it’s beneficial for democracy or society for a politician to hold indefinite power. To expand upon that:

I think it creates political machines and hinders the ability for fresh legislative ideas or meritocracy in legislatures/political bodies because seniority is given preference, no matter how good of a lawmaker one actually is. Incumbencies of a long duration can also create unfair advantages because the name recognition and familiarity can set up steep burdens for new candidates.

By your logic, a monopoly is okay and good because consumers chose it and we shouldn’t remove that “choice” from consumers. But that’s not always true. Sometimes we do need to ensure one entity (person or company) does not obtain too much power or presence over society or a legislature or a field of enterprise.

To further poke holes in your logic, why have age limits or residency requirements or ANY requirements for politicians since it removes people’s “choice”? I don’t buy the argument at all that setting basic standards and ethics for politicians is robbing voters of their choice.

3

sllewgh t1_ivlrn4k wrote

>I think it creates political machines and hinders the ability for fresh legislative ideas or meritocracy in legislatures/political bodies because seniority is given preference, no matter how good of a lawmaker one actually is. Incumbencies of a long duration can also create unfair advantages because the name recognition and familiarity can set up steep burdens for new candidates.

Question K does not get us closer to a meritocracy, it takes us further away by indiscriminately removing politicians regardless of their competency. This policy does not serve your stated values, it proposes a paternalistic system that assumes voters can't make good choices on their own, yet relies on them doing so more often.

>By your logic, a monopoly is okay

Please stick to engaging with stuff I actually said instead of making up arguments for me.

>To further poke holes in your logic, why have age limits or residency requirements or ANY requirements for politicians since it removes people’s “choice”?

There are tangible downsides to having children or people who don't live here as representatives.

1

pk10534 t1_ivltel5 wrote

Lol that’s exactly what I thought. You admit there are valid reasons as to why certain requirements for the eligibility of politicians to run should be put into place, you just don’t agree with mine. And that’s okay, you don’t have to be for term limits. But you certainly cannot claim I’m removing a choice from the voter when you endorse policies would also, by what you have stated, remove a choice from a voter as long it’s for a “tangible reason”.

2

sllewgh t1_ivlttvg wrote

It's not the same thing at all. All children are unqualified for office. Not all incumbents need removal.

1