Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
What are your thoughts on them? Should they be for some political offices and not others? For all? Or for none? Please explain your logic. Unless you're VAgent, in which case you can tell me what IDIC means 
I think we should have a single-term limit on all elected political offices, meaning congressmen, presidents (or prime ministers, premiers, dear leaders, der fuerhers, et al), city council members, mayors, and whatever local government positions there may be. This obviously excludes judges and sheriffs, because they are obviously different from the rest of that list. If you don't understand why, ask, and I'll explain my reasoning; I feel to go into in the OP would be to digress and pontificate unnecessarily.
My primary reason for coming to this conclusion is that, with the possibility of re-election, politicians, who are supposed to be the representatives of their constituency, become worried about their own political careers and their own re-election. The purpose of a representative democracy is to simplify direct democracy, since we obviously can't all be there to vote and decide on every little thing. That is why representatives are chosen to speak on behalf of the people who elected them, and if they are worried about their own re-election, then they aren't doing what is best for the people and for the nation.
A classic example of this, and what initially sparked this thought, is pork barrel spending. Though there may be myriad explanations given as to the purpose of such programs, what it comes down to is that a representative wants to be re-elected, and wants to get things for his district to show that he's "done something" and is worthy of keeping in office. If a politician doesn't have to worry about re-election, they aren't likely to add on unnecessary programs or items to bills for their own benefit. This goes hand-in-hand with the elimination of programs.
A strong criticism of congress is that they won't ever cut any programs, because it means less money going to their district, so the budget problems we have are plagued by an inability to remove any of the things that cost money. But why are politicians so unwilling to remove even the most useless of programs? Because their constituency finds out about it, and they have to defend it in the next election, and who is going to vote for someone who cuts programs in their home district?
If representatives can't be re-elected, then more people become involved in the political process by necessity. Campaigns should become more honest, as candidates have to argue purely about the issues and what they will do, though I admit the possibility of mudslinging to remain is by no means impossible.
This also makes elections more fair, as all the candidates begin on roughly the same financial level. Presently, the incumbent enjoys a huge advantage in fund-raising and advertisement, to say nothing of name-recognition. People will actually have to pay attention to what the candidates are supporting and proposing.
As with all people beginning new jobs, there's a certain eagerness that we see in politicians in their first few years, a real, honest desire to do their job right and with enthusiasm. This fades as the years go on, but without the possibility of re-election, there can be no "career politicians" who go through the motions. A cadre of enthusiastic public servants should emerge, ready to do their job, and well, with the time they're given. In addition, candidates have no lame duck period, because no one "holding out" to negotiate with the next group of elected representatives, because they won't be there to!
And finally, there's no need to have a re-election campaign. Think of all the money that would be saved, all the headaches gone.
So to recap, the advantages are:
1. Helps eliminate pork barrel spending.
2. Helps with the liquidation of programs, creating a more healthy budget.
3. More of the population becomes involved in the political process.
4. Elections are more fair, as there is no incumbent fund raising advantages, and all candidates must be evaluated each time.
5. Representatives cannot "settle into" their job, and with serve enthusiastically and more honestly.
6. No re-election campaigns, no lame duck periods.
There are disadvantages too, however. I will outline the ones I see quickly.
1. Candidates are always "green," that is, they are not as acquainted with "how things are done" in the system. I admit there is possibility for this to be assuaged either by education or by simplification of the system. But this bullet may also be counted in the "good" section, depending on how you look at it.
2. It could backfire and create a huge lame duck period, since no one can ever be re-elected.
3. Term limits would probably have to be lengthened, since everyone only gets one shot at it. This isn't necessarily a downside, merely what I think would be a requirement.
4. The lack of name recognition, as well as the new amounts of research into the candidates that would be required, could also backfire and make people even more disinterested in the system then they are now.
Now, discus!
I think we should have a single-term limit on all elected political offices, meaning congressmen, presidents (or prime ministers, premiers, dear leaders, der fuerhers, et al), city council members, mayors, and whatever local government positions there may be. This obviously excludes judges and sheriffs, because they are obviously different from the rest of that list. If you don't understand why, ask, and I'll explain my reasoning; I feel to go into in the OP would be to digress and pontificate unnecessarily.
My primary reason for coming to this conclusion is that, with the possibility of re-election, politicians, who are supposed to be the representatives of their constituency, become worried about their own political careers and their own re-election. The purpose of a representative democracy is to simplify direct democracy, since we obviously can't all be there to vote and decide on every little thing. That is why representatives are chosen to speak on behalf of the people who elected them, and if they are worried about their own re-election, then they aren't doing what is best for the people and for the nation.
A classic example of this, and what initially sparked this thought, is pork barrel spending. Though there may be myriad explanations given as to the purpose of such programs, what it comes down to is that a representative wants to be re-elected, and wants to get things for his district to show that he's "done something" and is worthy of keeping in office. If a politician doesn't have to worry about re-election, they aren't likely to add on unnecessary programs or items to bills for their own benefit. This goes hand-in-hand with the elimination of programs.
A strong criticism of congress is that they won't ever cut any programs, because it means less money going to their district, so the budget problems we have are plagued by an inability to remove any of the things that cost money. But why are politicians so unwilling to remove even the most useless of programs? Because their constituency finds out about it, and they have to defend it in the next election, and who is going to vote for someone who cuts programs in their home district?
If representatives can't be re-elected, then more people become involved in the political process by necessity. Campaigns should become more honest, as candidates have to argue purely about the issues and what they will do, though I admit the possibility of mudslinging to remain is by no means impossible.
This also makes elections more fair, as all the candidates begin on roughly the same financial level. Presently, the incumbent enjoys a huge advantage in fund-raising and advertisement, to say nothing of name-recognition. People will actually have to pay attention to what the candidates are supporting and proposing.
As with all people beginning new jobs, there's a certain eagerness that we see in politicians in their first few years, a real, honest desire to do their job right and with enthusiasm. This fades as the years go on, but without the possibility of re-election, there can be no "career politicians" who go through the motions. A cadre of enthusiastic public servants should emerge, ready to do their job, and well, with the time they're given. In addition, candidates have no lame duck period, because no one "holding out" to negotiate with the next group of elected representatives, because they won't be there to!
And finally, there's no need to have a re-election campaign. Think of all the money that would be saved, all the headaches gone.
So to recap, the advantages are:
1. Helps eliminate pork barrel spending.
2. Helps with the liquidation of programs, creating a more healthy budget.
3. More of the population becomes involved in the political process.
4. Elections are more fair, as there is no incumbent fund raising advantages, and all candidates must be evaluated each time.
5. Representatives cannot "settle into" their job, and with serve enthusiastically and more honestly.
6. No re-election campaigns, no lame duck periods.
There are disadvantages too, however. I will outline the ones I see quickly.
1. Candidates are always "green," that is, they are not as acquainted with "how things are done" in the system. I admit there is possibility for this to be assuaged either by education or by simplification of the system. But this bullet may also be counted in the "good" section, depending on how you look at it.
2. It could backfire and create a huge lame duck period, since no one can ever be re-elected.
3. Term limits would probably have to be lengthened, since everyone only gets one shot at it. This isn't necessarily a downside, merely what I think would be a requirement.
4. The lack of name recognition, as well as the new amounts of research into the candidates that would be required, could also backfire and make people even more disinterested in the system then they are now.
Now, discus!
I agree, Cheesy!
