|
|
#1 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
In Canadian politics, all elected positions in government have no term limits. IE. At not point does the law forbid you from continuing to run for a political office simply on the grounds of you having filled that office a set amount of time.
In the United States, while the same is true for the House and Senate, the office of the President is forbidden to those who have served two terms in office. The subject I'd like to see discussed is this: "Do you feel that a two-term limit on the presidency, especially in a system where any candidate can run regardless of whether they are the elected leader of one of the two large parties, is a good idea?" It seems to me that if a given party, candidate and ideology are what the people want, they should be allowed to continue to elect that candidate until such a time as they no longer want that person running the country. If the people want Candidate X for 20 years, why should that be forbidden from happening? (EDIT: PLEASE PLEASE don't turn this into a "GWB rigged elections, if he could keep running, he'd keep rigging elections forever and we'd be doomed" thread. I'm talking about the policy itself, not the one specific example of how it might go wrong) |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
FFR Player
|
Well, as a bit of backstory, I'll explain (to the best of my knowledge) the reasons behind this, for those who don't know.
American policy has a history of not trusting the people with themselves. The electoral college system was originally created for two reasons: 1) it was too difficult to get an accurate count of all votes across the United States two hundred years ago, and 2) the founding fathers didn't trust the people to make the smartest decisions, which is why they instead elect "electors" who then vote for a specific candidate. Now remember, originally there wasn't a two-term limit. It wasn't until Franklin Roosevelt was elected four times in a row that the limit was actually instituted. Washington decided not to run for a third term, which is why he only served two. The government decided that there should be a two-term limit on presidency for the same reason senators are elected every two years in a different third of the country: too much change at once when people are used to something can result in confusion and bad things occurring. This way, people wouldn't have the same president for more than eight years at a time (well, it's really a maximum of ten, with the whole "assume presidency during first half of term and you can run twice" thing), so that when a new president showed up, it wouldn't cause much turmoil. Another reason is that America was built on several principles, one of which was that there would be no ruler for life (this is why there are elections every four years for the presidency). After FDR, it became apparent that Americans might elect someone for life, fearing the change a new president would cause, or not wishing to improve on a president, instead saying "This guy's good enough, just keep him in." This ties into the whole "Protect the people from themselves" policy that the government has had ever since its creation. To recap, here are the reasons a two-term limit was instituted: 1) America wasn't supposed to have a ruler for life. 2) Election of a new president after a long period of time could result in confusion or turmoil if the new president is radically different from the old. With a two-term limit, people don't get so used to the same president and can deal with change more easily. 3) The people might fear change or be unwilling to improve, resulting in election of the same president over and over (e.g. "Hmm...I'm not really sure what'll happen if we elect Candidate Y, and President X has been the leader for 20 years and he's done a decent job, so I'll vote for President X again") I'll chime in again with my own opinion when I have more time. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Well, it seems to me, that if the defining arguement for term limits is "The american population is too stupid or prone to panic to be trusted with the potentiality of a candidate for life" that maybe democratic elections are just a bad idea all around?
If you can't put implicit trust in your people to make useful, reasoned decisions, why are you letting them make these decisions about something as important as the leadership of the country? Oligarchy maybe? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
FFR Player
|
The two term limit seems more or less about trusting the president rather the people. But that raises the questions of "can we trust the people to not trust the politician?" and "could we trust the Congressmen who don't go under these restrictions to not grant the president so much power?"
__________________
last.fm |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I guess the defining question is: "Can you count on the people to pay enough attention to notice when someone isn't doing what they said they would, and can you count on them to care enough about that to ensure that people they don't like fail to get re-elected?"
You'd hope the answer would be yes and yes, but there's such a sense of apathy in the western world these days about political authority, such a blanket assumption that you're just choosing between the lesser of two evils, that people don't seem to be able to muster the enthusiasm about the chance to actually guide the political development of their nation. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
"Hmm...should I pick Candidate X, even though he apparently cheated on his wife and wanted to cut funds for education, or Candidate Y, the one who neglected his duties in his current position and didn't do what he said he would? Screw it, I'm just not gonna vote." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
Quote:
The apathy comes from a combination of things: an unpopular war, an unpopular administration, and the 2004 election. There was was a brief period of hope in 2003, but the Red States really f*cked everything up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12
|
Quote:
tl;dr: RED STATES > BLUE STATES EDIT: AHAHA this thread was from august LOL. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
I find it quite sad. But maybe it isn't that people don't care because their lazy, maybe they just figure that their opinion wont even matter? "Im one in 20 million, whats why vote gonna matter"? I think, if more people started caring, it would change the course of this nation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Political term limits help make the system more inefficient, and therefore less capable of focused harm. On that basis I suppose I consider them acceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
So limited ability to cause focused harm is worth sacrificing the ability to also cause focused good?
What if term limits were removed, but the ability of the citizenry to call for a vote of no-confidence and remove leaders that they felt were failing to complete their mandate was increased? Then someone that the people approve of that is doing a good job isn't constrained by two terms, but someone who is obviously abusing the office can be somewhat more easily removed. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 | |||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Oh you know that, and I know that, and a meritocracy would be wonderful if completely impossible to bring about. The more candidates in an election, the more likely the average north american is to vote for one for an arbitrary reason rather than an informed one.
Just, given a suitable way to remove undesireable candidates, it would be nice if there were a way to allow good candidates to continue to serve as long as they are doing good work. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 | ||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Imagine that at any given election time there are only 2 political candidates, one pure evil and one pure good. Regardless of deliberation, it is impossible to determine which is which, even after each has done their damage. The optimal solution seems to be to choose both with 50% frequency. Term limits ensure that any given candidate will only serve for a finite period of time, making it so choosing a candidate with 50% frequency will result in the same amount of time allocation for good or evil to do its job. Term limits sort of keep the deck shuffled. It wouldn't make that big of a difference, except for the fact that this was a pretty huge oversimplification. The point is that voting is a game of imperfect information, as people's ideological inclinations are generally the basis for their votes and these ideologies don't necessarily have anything to do with the state of reality. However they will vote as if they have perfect information. Having only 2 candidates decreases the likelihood of one being chosen for an arbitrary reason. It also increases the likelihood that the choices of voters will cancel each other out over time. That's sadly the best I think we can hope for in our present system, that the good will cancel out the bad, or if you consider both good and bad to be positive, that you will be guaranteed some good and not all bad. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
FFR Player
|
I'm pretty sure you know that president term limits hasn't always been like that. I remember there were several times when a candidate ran for president more than twice. It's only recently (kind of) that presidential terms has been limited to two. However, I believe there is some good reasoning behind it.
In the past, there was no rule to stop them from running a third term. However, presidents had a tendency of doing a poor job in their second term. Both the president and the people would know it. The president wouldn't run a third time because their party would want someone else to hold the chair and the people wouldn't want to vote for someone who was doing a poor job governing their country. Also, I believe there are some presidents who chose not to run a third term, even if they did a good job in their second term to follow in George Washington's footsteps of stepping down from power after his second term. It was not until someone won their third term did people start going, hey, this isn't normal. Lets put a rule against it. What's the harm? Presidents will never be able to gain tremendous power and they tend to do poorly in their second term so they are probably not going to be reelected anyways. I'm pretty sure that if there was an excellent president, people would try to fight for his/her third term. But the chances for that will always be slim because not everyone is going to think that a single president all good. ~Tsugomaru
__________________
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
FFR Player
|
Because votes are not two dimensional--politicians behind party lines have many varying views--this also increases the likelihood that people will vote more out of disdain for one than a liking of the other.
__________________
last.fm |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Yes, and that was one of a number of ways in which I oversimplified. American politics is, in terms of the presidency in the past 150 years or so at least, two party. We can also expect, if not fixed view, then a general range of political views under each umbrella. To a reasonable extent competition for the same market makes the parties quite similar, so clearly on that basis alone one candidate is not pure evil and the other pure good. However, there are very real ways in which policies are directly contradictory in terms of philosophy and effect. Democrats have usually been more interested in progressive policies of government economic intervention, while conservatives have usually favored market non-intervention. Neo-con's kind of screwed that up. The political landscape changes, but the important thing is that as time goes on the system as it is set up largely just negates itself. At least it has the greatest chance of doing so.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|