Spending multiple millions on every single senate seat becomes a losing battle for the Uniparty when that seat is vacated every one or two terms.
senators will go for way cheaper without an established brand name.
All term limits do is push the people in power out of the limelight. You cant solve the lack of honest and intelligent decision-makers by rotating the corrupt morons faster in hope those run out. You're never running out or corrupt morons.
Those are interesting points, but I have to assume that it would be harder for political machines to run new candidates every two cycles instead of throwing all their might behind one big fish for 40-50 years.
I would like to see term limits for the bureaucracy as well.
I'm generally against "boardgame-style" rules in politics, like "You can do X, but only up to N times".
Life doesnt have to be "balanced" : either a "move" is "good", and should be used as often as the political situation necessitates, or it is bad and should be disallowed completely. If a rule seems "excessively used", it is usually a symptom of a design problem with the system. Thus restricting "overuse", is attacking a symptom, instead of dealing with the root cause. In other words, a cop-out. Breaking your thermometer at whatever temperature you're comfortable with, will not fix your heating/cooling issues.
As such, conversation about term limits should be viewed as a symptom of a dysfunctional system, where people are looking for a "cheat rule" to get those they don't like out of the power position. But rotating out corrupt stooges(in politics or administration) every X years will not solve the problem of having your system overrun with corrupt stooges. You solve that issue with education and active citizen involvment. Possibly with a touch of firing squads - in some situations(though, obviously, I can't think of any modern real-world country where that last part would apply).
senators will go for way cheaper without an established brand name.
All term limits do is push the people in power out of the limelight. You cant solve the lack of honest and intelligent decision-makers by rotating the corrupt morons faster in hope those run out. You're never running out or corrupt morons.
Those are interesting points, but I have to assume that it would be harder for political machines to run new candidates every two cycles instead of throwing all their might behind one big fish for 40-50 years.
I would like to see term limits for the bureaucracy as well.
I'm generally against "boardgame-style" rules in politics, like "You can do X, but only up to N times".
Life doesnt have to be "balanced" : either a "move" is "good", and should be used as often as the political situation necessitates, or it is bad and should be disallowed completely. If a rule seems "excessively used", it is usually a symptom of a design problem with the system. Thus restricting "overuse", is attacking a symptom, instead of dealing with the root cause. In other words, a cop-out. Breaking your thermometer at whatever temperature you're comfortable with, will not fix your heating/cooling issues.
As such, conversation about term limits should be viewed as a symptom of a dysfunctional system, where people are looking for a "cheat rule" to get those they don't like out of the power position. But rotating out corrupt stooges(in politics or administration) every X years will not solve the problem of having your system overrun with corrupt stooges. You solve that issue with education and active citizen involvment. Possibly with a touch of firing squads - in some situations(though, obviously, I can't think of any modern real-world country where that last part would apply).