Idea for a new SuperPAC

[jaF0]

If anybody has a spare few million dollars.

The gist would be voter imposed term limits. The slogan, something like 'Re-Elect No One!'

The goal would be to educate voters in not allowing anyone to serve more than two terms or to be elected more than twice to the same office in their lifetime. Never vote for any person that has already been elected to an office twice.

The mission of the group would be to find, recruit and support viable candidates in races that are otherwise unopposed.

This group would act in regards to both parties, so that there is always a viable opposition candidate for every office no matter which party holds it. It might even be a candidate from the same party.

 

[jaF0]

This went over well, didn't it?

 

[adrina]

Why didn't the authors of the constitution put in term limits for the congress, senate and presidency?

 

[wheres_the_beef]

The effects when Michigan implemented term limits weren't what those supporting them usually expect.

Lobbyists and special interests became more influential since none of the elected officials had experience to fall back on when dealing with complicated issues. Those elected officials were still generally professional long service politicians. They were just on a merry go round of constantly seeking out the next office. That made fund raising more important since every other election they faced a new electorate who didn't know them. The need to please two electorates tended to make them stick more closely to rigid partisan positions. Bipartisan deal making ended. Partisanship and gridlock increased.

Term limits made the common complaints about politics worse in Michigan. It's not even a case of the cure being worse than the disease. The term limit "cure" actually made the disease worse.

 

[Hypoxia]

The US Constitution calls for the democratic election of Senators and Representatives. (POTUS is different, elected by operatives, not voters.) State constitutions and local codes call for the democratic election of their officials. But term limits restrict voters' democratic choices.

If voters want a politician gone, they can throw the bastard out with their ballots. But a long-term pol probably has the experience and guile to serve their constituents better than a newcomer could. (I say 'probably' because some idiots manage to hang in there, too. But some voters love idiots.)

Some republics limit their chief executive to one long-ish term. Others swap in a new chief every year or two. Hmmm, do studies exist of the economic and social impacts of term limits of executives and lawmakers around the world? Would USA be better with POTUS and VP limited to one 5- or 6-year term?

 

[Liar]

Giving voters proper options where prooper options didn't exist? Good. Telling them who they should and shouldn't vote for? Not as good. Incumbency is not the problem. Complacent incumbency can be.

On the other hand, if you challenge an incumbent for the sake of just challenging the incumbent, and not because the incumbent is doing a particularly bad job or you are an ideological opponent... why? What instrinsic value does that have? It runs the risk of forcing the incumbent to spend more time doing populist politicking and less time doing responsible governing.

 

[richard_daily]

Why didn't the authors of the constitution put in term limits for the congress, senate and presidency?

Because they assumed that people would self-regulate. Washington stated as much. But clearly that doesn't work.