Term Limits

[NeonSubtlety]

I think they're a simple protection against undue influence. Assuming Americans believe many are competent enough for governance, then it's a fantastic stipulation.

But given how rampant nepotism is 'round these parts, it's hard to stand by them staunchly.

 

[about_average]

So. . .American Idol for President except without knocking out the first million competitors?

I think it would be closer to America's Got Talent, with all the early acts included.

On the issue of SCOTUS, maybe more people just need to join with Pat Robertson and ask god to "remove" them from the court.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

America needs term limits.

 

[AllyRose]

Voter apathy is systemic, and perhaps the vast majority of those who do vote don't really know the candidate they're voting for. They pull the lever because there's an (R) or a (D) next to the name.

Term limits might seem like an easy and simple protection, but I'm also leaning towards the notion that it does more harm than good. I read over Madison's 53, and I agree that our country needs statesmen that possess superior talents and experience, but too often the problems I described earlier seem to poison the system.

Superior talents... including deception.

- Candidate A believes in X.
- X, through diligent research, has been proven false.
- Candidate A continues to push for X, and wins re-election by making the voter afraid of option Y.
- Through deception, Candidate X continues to exert mastery of the "public business".

If we impose term limits, we may prevent Candidate A from being re-elected, but we'll also prevent worthy candidates from being able to continue to represent the people.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Voter apathy is also caused by the fact that there is frankly too damn much voting on things that most people are simply unqualified to vote on. I'd be perfectly happy to let a combination of teachers (active and retired) and the PTA (So parents who give a shit) vote to see who gets the various official school board positions. I tend to leave it blank but I'm sure lots of people who didn't know Mrs. Crabapple from Mr. Hand voted on those things.

 

[AllyRose]

I don't think that there's too much for Americans to vote on... those issues are actually very important. Suppose you vote for someone to get a local school board position. Ten or twenty years down the line... that person might be a superintendent. Ten years after that... and they're possibly on the short list for a major state or national educational position.

It all goes back to educating the public.

 

[AllyRose]

Most voters may not be qualified now (like the ones that read The National Inquirer as if it's gospel), but that doesn't mean we should give up.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I don't think that there's too much for Americans to vote on... those issues are actually very important. Suppose you vote for someone to get a local school board position. Ten or twenty years down the line... that person might be a superintendent. Ten years after that... and they're possibly on the short list for a major state or national educational position.

It all goes back to educating the public.

I honestly don't have the time to educate myself on that many people and things every six months. My average ballot (not the big paper one but the booklet) is some thirty pages long. And not only do you need to know all these people you also have to know all the props, some of which are worded intentionally or not in such convulted ways that you don't even know what the hell they are asking.

The difference between "Do you mind if I fuck you?" and "May I fuck you" comes to mind. It's mind boggling. I don't think most full time workers have the time or inclination to learn all that.

 

[AllyRose]

I honestly don't have the time to educate myself on that many people and things every six months. My average ballot (not the big paper one but the booklet) is some thirty pages long. And not only do you need to know all these people you also have to know all the props, some of which are worded intentionally or not in such convulted ways that you don't even know what the hell they are asking.

The difference between "Do you mind if I fuck you?" and "May I fuck you" comes to mind. It's mind boggling. I don't think most full time workers have the time or inclination to learn all that.

The kind of change I'm talking about won't happen overnight.

But... you know what they say: "The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one."

 

[Sean Renaud]

The kind of change I'm talking about won't happen overnight.

But... you know what they say: "The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one."

Yeah. We just disagree on what the problem here is. Which of course is fine. And it may vary from state to state. Her in California you'll often see initiatives that should be coupled broken in two. Something like.

1. Vote Yes if you think California should spend 10 billion dollars on high rail using the 6 cent gas tax!

2. Vote Yes if you think California should eliminate the 6 cent gas tax!

If your at all curious they both get voted yes, because people want things and don't want to pay for them. And that's just a simple straight forward one.

I also think voter apathy kicks in in large states where we really don't matter much. Not only are California, New York and mostl likely Texas robbed of votes (and Representatives) that we should have our states are so solid in one color that for the president and senators we can just kind of sit back relax and enjoy the ride.

 

[AllyRose]

I also think voter apathy kicks in in large states where we really don't matter much. Not only are California, New York and mostl likely Texas robbed of votes (and Representatives) that we should have our states are so solid in one color that for the president and senators we can just kind of sit back relax and enjoy the ride.

This is where you're making my argument for me. The notion that voters don't really matter is what keeps up the system so polluted.

 

[Sean Renaud]

This is where you're making my argument for me. The notion that voters don't really matter is what keeps up the system so polluted.

It's not a notion, it's a mathematical fact. The three people living in Alaska get three votes for president. The eight million in California get 54. Which is more than 3. . .but not 8 million more. (I'm not doing the math but most of those little three vote having states ROCK as far as your vote counting. And purple states WOOBOY people care what you think.

 

[AllyRose]

Suppose half of the 8+ million voters decide not to show up on election day.

And then suppose the 4ish million voters left don't do any HW about who they're voting for.

That state now has 54 electoral votes going to a (R) candidate.

~

Now... suppose all 8+ million votes show up.

Suppose all 8+ million voters do their HW.

That state, which in years past had gone (R), is now leaning (D).

 

[Sean Renaud]

Hypothetically possible sure but it seems unlikely. It's like voter fraud. Even if it is happening you also have to bridge the gap that it's all on one side or at least seriously lopsided for that to really be an issue.

But that is a solid point.

 

[sr71plt]

Voter apathy is systemic, and perhaps the vast majority of those who do vote don't really know the candidate they're voting for. They pull the lever because there's an (R) or a (D) next to the name.

Are there states that put R and D next to names? Mine doesn't. You at least have to know who the party candidate is if you're going to vote party line. It also isn't idiotic to be voting party line for a legislature. It's important to be in control in the legislature and that happens in aggregating party-candidate winners.

 

[Sean Renaud]

California does last I checked. I recently moved so I don't think I have any absentee ballots just lying around.

 

[AllyRose]

Are there states that put R and D next to names? Mine doesn't. You at least have to know who the party candidate is if you're going to vote party line. It also isn't idiotic to be voting party line for a legislature. It's important to be in control in the legislature and that happens in aggregating party-candidate winners.

Some states do, some states don't.

And I'm not saying that voting along party lines is a bad thing... only when the voter goes in and votes for a party simply because they don't want to see the other side win, or they believe in some lie that gets tossed around on social media (i.e. Obama is a Kenyan Muslim that wants Sharia law).

 

[sr71plt]

No, voting against someone on a single issue isn't good, but voting party line is a positive vote if you have more affinity to that party's general behavior than to another one's.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No, voting against someone on a single issue isn't good, but voting party line is a positive vote if you have more affinity to that party's general behavior than to another one's.

^^^^ This is frighteningly true. Not that I approve voting party line but I can easily say that when in doubt I'd vote D. There are good(ish) Republicans. Or at least those who's bad ideas are largely harmless. I'm a fan of the Pauls over all. I like a lot of their social ideas, don't hate their foreign policy (though Ron goes overboard) and lets face it they can want to shut down the fed all day and all night and the stars will grow cold before that happens so who cares that they want to do that?

 

[Paendragon]

Not that I'm asking you to check all their ages throughout time but I'm not sure a sample size of one group of appointees really means anything at all.

I saw what Paendragon posted as just an "original" compared to now. I wondered if Paendragon's suppositions held, and they seem to. The original justices (other than the anomaly--the comparatively very young chief justice, John Jay) did get appointed later in life and their lives were shorter than those of the current court.

I can't, of course, say that Washington's reasoning on appointments had anything to do with wanting them to kick off after only a few years on the Court so that the perspectives would remain fresh.

The general feeling of the Founders (Washington and Jefferson certainly), though (Hamilton--and maybe Adams--excepted), I think was that everything at the federal level was "as little as absolutely necessary."

It stayed pretty even through the mid-20th century. There were outliers, of course, but there were also very short terms to kind of even it out.

In the first 100 years of the court 18 Justices served 20 years or more (36%), 13 Justices served 25 years or more (26%), 7 served 30 years or more (14%). Out of 50 Justices.

Since 1950 13 Justices served at least 20 years (61%), 7 Justices served 25 years (33%), 4 Justices served over 30 years (19%). I excluded the appointees who were sworn in within the last 20 years, who obviously could not get to the 20-year minimum.

Since 1970 9 Justices served at least 20 years (81%), 4 served at least 25 years (36%), and 2 served at least 30 years (18%).

In the current court, 5 of the 9 have served more than 20 years, already (that would have been a bit higher but Souter shocked everyone by retiring at 69 years of age after "only" 18 years on the bench). The other four Justices are all 65 or younger.

If they all retire at 80 (the average retirement age of the Justices appointed since 1970) they will have served:

Scalia: 29 years
Kennedy: 27 years
Thomas: 36 years
Ginsburg is already over 80: she has served 21 years
Breyer: 23 years
Roberts: 29 years
Alito: 23 years
Sotomayor: 25 years
Kagan: 30 years

That means 100% of this court will have served for 20 years, 66% will have served 25 years, and 22% will have served 30 years. That's a long time. And that's assuming things like Ginsburg retiring immediately, and Scalia and Kennedy, both 79, retiring next year. I don't see either of those happening.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Thank you. Though I really, really wasn't asking you to show your work. Like I feel a little guilty now that you went and did all that. Cus I honestly didn't mean to pull your punk card or anything.

 

[Paendragon]

Thank you. Though I really, really wasn't asking you to show your work. Like I feel a little guilty now that you went and did all that. Cus I honestly didn't mean to pull your punk card or anything.

No worries. I actually found it fascinating.

I'm weird like that.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No worries. I actually found it fascinating.

I'm weird like that.

Good to go then. I just have a habit of asking people to show their work when they make claims that I don't buy. And I did believe you I just thought the sample size was small. But you're a good guy and I respect you and honestly there are plenty on the board that I don't dislike, a few that I like (outside of certain behaviors) but only a few I respect as genuine good and honest people.

 

[ShySubSara]

The bigger problem I have is that neither party has a complete package I agree with and I hate voting for the lesser of two evils.

I want a politician that believes in protecting ALL of the bill of rights and not just pick and choose. I want somebody that is financial responsible and socially liberal.

I want to own a guy, practice whatever religion I choose, not give a shit ton of money in taxes, be free to love and marry who I want and neither party does that.

 

[AllyRose]

Not me! I want an annotated bibliography on my desk by tomorrow morning!