September 28, 2004

• The Ultimate Term Limit By digitally preserving the contents of a person's brain in an artificially intelligent computer chip, it is possible to allow a person – say, a winning Commander-in-Chief – to continue making winning decisions, even after he or she has passed on in the traditional sense.
• Two words: entrenched incumbency. Read Section 2 for the best answer.
• Ah, hell. I'll just post it. (4) Long-time incumbents often have benefits from their offices that have given them unequal advantages in obtaining reelection. (5) Entrenched incumbency has had the effect of denying equal rights to seek office. (6) Entrenched incumbency has had the effect of reducing the participation of racial minorities, women, and young voters in elections for the Senate and House of Representatives. (7) Long-time incumbents often encourage unconstitutional gerrymandering of congressional districts to assist their continuing in office. (8) Long-time incumbents often become more responsive to special interests than to the voters, thus infringing on the voter's right to nondiscriminatory treatment in the provision of government services. (9) Long-term incumbents often have advantages in obtaining financial support for campaigns, which result in greatly unequal opportunities among candidates seeking election.
• Is this a Turkmenbashi thread?
• That's why we got rid of Kings.
• Even the most popular, successful leaders end up becoming hated dictators, given enough time in power. Sad but true. And hey, i.e, given the USA's term, 8 years can weigh down any man. Or woman.
• What Cali said.
• Because you'll end up with lifetime mayors like this one.
• Because the Republicans never want a repeat of FDR.
• A couple months ago, I was thinking about the negative aspects of term limits, namely the radical shifts in US foreign policy when a different party's candidate is elected. Must make the U.S. look like a bit of a freak to have such a radical personality change every few years. Specifically, Europe and the Middle East must be saying "What happened to you, America? You used to be cool..."
• But because of term limits, LordSludge, Europe and the Middle East can have at least some confidence that America will be "cool" again someday soon...
• because it may cause a regime
• ... or Strom Thurmond.
• I am often criticized by folks for believing that people are generally idiots. Term Limits are a fine example of the State recognizing how idiotic people are. If the assumption was that people are not idiots, then there would be no need for term limits. If people were not idiots, then they could recognize and address the concerns expressed by Cali and vote out the power-abusing incumbents.
• I'm split on this. I'm in favor of term limits for the president, but opposed to congressional term limits. The former to prevent a regime (Democrats: how does 16 years of Reagon sound? Republicans: how about 16 years of Clinton) In California, we have term limits on the state assembly and senate (6 and 8 years respectively). I think the side effect of this is that just as a legislator is coming into his or her own, they are forced to resign. Imagine if your company had to lay-off anybody who'd worked there for 6 years. You start to lose a lot of collective knowledge. Having inexperienced lawmakers tends to favor special interest groups, since the lawmakers have to rely more on outside money than any reputation they have built for themselves.
• Corruption.
• I agree with kwyjibo. I think we should have term limits on a president (though I am an FDR fan), but I tend to believe that term limits on legislators kick people out just as they're getting good at their jobs. On the one hand, I want to keep out the "good ol' boys." On the other, I want *professional* politicians working for me, not some rank amateur.