Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I wonder if strict and short term limits would inhibit the ability (for any entity) to condition the masses.

No, it would do exactly the opposite. Short term limits mean you perpetually have a revolving door of inexperienced and naive legislators who are much more prone to a) manipulation by experienced and cut-throat lobbyists and b) grabbing everything they can for their district with no regard for long-term sustainability, because they'll be gone before they can see any consequences.

I'm not picking on you in particular because I see this all over the place, but it really makes me crazy when people default to their gut emotions and desire to punish, and so come up with non-solutions like "shorter term limits!" which actually make the problem so much worse.



"which actually make the problem so much worse"

I'm sorry you haven't made that case at all. All you have done is listed the costs of the "term limits" side, you haven't listed any of the benefits. A couple off of the top of my head:

1. Seats would be up for effective election more often allowing for democracy to perhaps function more effectively. Perhaps there would be more of a market of ideas instead of cults of personality.

2. Less time for legislators to establish "ties" (corruption) with regulators, business leaders, party leaders, and others in power.


Not sure. Power corrupts, but it is not doing it instantly. Freshmen politicians might be less touched.


Its a balanced scale, any good is equally weighed by the bad. Except the larger representative lobbyists often tip the scale towards bad more often than not.


I’m not claiming it would help; I’m asking if it would help.


As opposed to the competent legislators there today? I don’t think they can really be much worse in many countries.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: