I listen to a British podcast, The Rest is Politics, hosted by two former MPs, to get another view on governing a divided country with similar concerns. They recently raised a very good question: why are there no job descriptions, no prerequisites, for lawmakers in this day and age? We have a few (age, citizenship, nominally non-insurrec…
I listen to a British podcast, The Rest is Politics, hosted by two former MPs, to get another view on governing a divided country with similar concerns. They recently raised a very good question: why are there no job descriptions, no prerequisites, for lawmakers in this day and age? We have a few (age, citizenship, nominally non-insurrectionist) but it seems that it boils down to fundraising and being good on the stump. A job description for politicians sounds daft, but is it?
I'm all for making their job requirements and performance metrics more like ours, especially since we're the ones paying them. Maybe term limits would encourage them to take things like that more seriously, since they don't seem to have much of an incentive to do so when they know they will be reelected for years and years with no consequences for subpar results.
Half jokingly I think it used to be, "bring home the pork" and don't embarrass us, but now it seems that significant number of the voters are happy enough with entertainment rather than expecting (and voting for) a government to wield the immense power of the country for something ambitious, say, national healthcare, affordable post-secondary state university or trade school training, raising taxes and redistributing wealth downwards so that we share in good times and bank for our commitments to present and future generations. We have so much potential as a country; but, as the (Canadian!) songwriter/poet Leonard Cohen once said, " I love the country, but I hate the scene"
Experience in California has shown that when you have relatively short term limits in the assembly/senate, inexperienced legislators show up, get pitched by lobbyists on a law they can quickly propose and get passed, and tend to go for this so they will have some achievement before they are term limited. Then the legislator uses this to go from assembly/house to senate and so on.
Meanwhile the lobbyists are not term-limited, and you prevent the legislators getting enough experience to see through the lobbyists.
Really, term limits are evidence of a bug where legislators don't fear losing their seats in elections enough. For example in the UK there are no term limits, but half or more of Conservative MPs are about to be kicked out by voters as soon as there's an election this year. "Losing election" should be a higher risk for the GOP here too.
I listen to a British podcast, The Rest is Politics, hosted by two former MPs, to get another view on governing a divided country with similar concerns. They recently raised a very good question: why are there no job descriptions, no prerequisites, for lawmakers in this day and age? We have a few (age, citizenship, nominally non-insurrectionist) but it seems that it boils down to fundraising and being good on the stump. A job description for politicians sounds daft, but is it?
I'm all for making their job requirements and performance metrics more like ours, especially since we're the ones paying them. Maybe term limits would encourage them to take things like that more seriously, since they don't seem to have much of an incentive to do so when they know they will be reelected for years and years with no consequences for subpar results.
Half jokingly I think it used to be, "bring home the pork" and don't embarrass us, but now it seems that significant number of the voters are happy enough with entertainment rather than expecting (and voting for) a government to wield the immense power of the country for something ambitious, say, national healthcare, affordable post-secondary state university or trade school training, raising taxes and redistributing wealth downwards so that we share in good times and bank for our commitments to present and future generations. We have so much potential as a country; but, as the (Canadian!) songwriter/poet Leonard Cohen once said, " I love the country, but I hate the scene"
Good point, and well stated.
Term limits are bad, at least for legislators.
Experience in California has shown that when you have relatively short term limits in the assembly/senate, inexperienced legislators show up, get pitched by lobbyists on a law they can quickly propose and get passed, and tend to go for this so they will have some achievement before they are term limited. Then the legislator uses this to go from assembly/house to senate and so on.
Meanwhile the lobbyists are not term-limited, and you prevent the legislators getting enough experience to see through the lobbyists.
Really, term limits are evidence of a bug where legislators don't fear losing their seats in elections enough. For example in the UK there are no term limits, but half or more of Conservative MPs are about to be kicked out by voters as soon as there's an election this year. "Losing election" should be a higher risk for the GOP here too.
So really the issue should be gerrymandering and outlawing it.
That's up to each state's voters. Not SCOTUS. For them, it's a political question. More on that here, for those interested: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-9-1/ALDE_00001283/#:~:text=The%20political%20question%20doctrine%20limits,mootness%2C%20would%20otherwise%20be%20met.
"nominally non-insurrectionist" - love that.