Poll: Democracy!

[Souplex]

Anarchy anyone? would add some colour to everyone's day

Added "Democracy itself is a bad idea" just for you.

 

[blackfrancis567]

Anarchy anyone? would add some colour to everyone's day

Added "Democracy itself is a bad idea" just for you.

Then my don't care vote is changed in this post to Democracy itself is a bad idea

 

[Souplex]

FDR was the only president that served for more than two terms, he actually served four terms.

Not quite, he was elected four times but died before his fourth term could start. His last words were "I have a spectacular headache."

 

[Kollega]

Term limits are useful. They may force us to unseat good leaders after a while,but on the other hand,they help keeping power-hungry madmen in check,and that is more important.

 

[Souplex]

FDR was the only president that served for more than two terms, he actually served four terms.

Not quite, he was elected four times but died before his fourth term could start. His last words were "I have a spectacular headache."

Well someone here is a nerdfighter...or at least a fan of John Green's books or videos.

Who is John Green and what is a nerdfighter? Is it someone who fights nerds? A nerd who fights? Both? Answers man!

 

[Destal]

Term limits are a phenomenal idea that need to be expanded on in the House and Senate. I would love to see less campers in the same office for 20+ years. Fresh faces all the time would make it much harder for people to become corrupt. Also, fresh faces would mean fresh idea's. Things can get pretty stagnant at times.

I would say no more than 3-4 terms for both the House and Senate.

 

[rampantcreature]

I live in NYC and I think term limits are necessary. Mostly because to me it seems that people get lazy and will vote for the same person to be in office rather than considering a new candidate. After all, that guy did fine the last X years, why bother changing it? Then they get to write it off as being "experienced" candidates even if they've only fucked things up to worse than they were before.

 

[Souplex]

Fresh faces all the time would make it much harder for people to become corrupt.

Some would argue otherwise; new people are less experienced and might not be adjusted to the pressures of potential corruption and hence more likely to take bribes.

 

[Destal]

Fresh faces all the time would make it much harder for people to become corrupt.

Some would argue otherwise; new people are less experienced and might not be adjusted to the pressures of potential corruption and hence more likely to take bribes.

It seems more like the idealists get elected and then get corrupted over time. Although some people are just plain corrupt period. Yes, I have no doubt that some corrupted people will get elected, but that is no different than it is now, but would also have the upside of not keeping the same people there forever. The incumbent win rate is absurdly high, it's something like 80-90%.

 

[Agema]

It cuts two ways.

It's good to have changes in power, so that when an alternative party takes over they are likely to have people with prior experience of government in their ranks. Someone rules for too long, the opposition end up with the problem that they are too untried and untested. It also vastly reduces the ability of leaders to abuse their position.

The obvious downside is that it can compel the best candidate not to stand.

 

[Jark212]

I don't see anything wrong with having the same person run any number of times, but I'm sure there's a reason that I'm not seeing

That's what Hitler did... and Ahmadinejad, and Chavez tried to do but got shot down...