Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Wyoguns

Term limits

Recommended Posts

On 11/26/2022 at 8:05 AM, sactowndog said:

I would prefer to see an upper age limit for all federal office holders.  Hit 75 and you are out 

Maybe even 70.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2022 at 8:35 AM, Los_Aztecas said:

Maybe even 70.

Yea I’d like this one. You could easily make it a “softer” cutoff by making it the maximum age to run, so the age limit would really be 72-76 depending on the office. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2022 at 12:23 PM, GoDogs22 said:

Drawbacks would be that it would increase corporate and dark money interference, since those firms would know that each elected official has a time limit.

 

We have term limits, they're called elections.  What we really need is more education on elected officials so that people don't just keep voting for the same ineffective incumbents every few years.

The only problem with leaving it to the people is that incumbents have enormous advantages in fundraising, free media coverage and other things. This leads to your point about education on elected officials, but I don't think that's a realistic option because....well, let's face it...we've become too divided, too lazy and too stupid as voters. Another downfall would be that you lose some of that institutional knowledge of the mechanics of how things run. That is learned in time, but it would be a small downfall of cycling politicians out every 8 years or so. 

But one of the big advantages of term limits is that too many politicians operate under the premise of risk aversion on any big issue, the reasoning too often becomes what will get that person re-elected instead of what is right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of term limits, but the realities are fraught with dark money peril.

House 6 terms = 12 years

Senate 4 terms = 24 years

Age cap at 75.

No more than 24 years of combined House/Senate Service.

Cap out non appointed high level Civil Servants like Fauci. The Deep State types.

25 year SCOTUS and District Court terms. Cap out all Fed Judges at 75.

Moar Congressional oversight of the Chief Executive and his top Cabinet advisors. The Constitution is designed to prevent another Monarchy/Authoritarian. Yet, Congress keeps ceding more and more power to that Executive. Is it just human nature that we desire a Monarch ?

 

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always found it interesting that public service (motivation notwithstanding) is the one profession where experience is frowned upon.

 

 

I know 90 years olds who are mentally sharper than some of us.  And I know Gen Xers who I wouldnt trust to put together a grocery list.  Sometimes, there is no one-size-fits-all solution.  Not doing the job anymore?  That's what the ballot box is for.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2022 at 8:16 AM, SalinasSpartan said:

An acknowledgment of the reality of the human body. 

I've known several people who developed dementia in their 40's or 50's and I've known a few who are mentally sharp in their 80's and even 90's :shrug:

making a cutoff based upon a number is the epitome of "ageism"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2022 at 12:57 PM, renoskier said:

I've known several people who developed dementia in their 40's or 50's and I've known a few who are mentally sharp in their 80's and even 90's :shrug:

making a cutoff based upon a number is the opitome of "ageism"

I agree with this. Wisdom is something that comes with age, so limiting someone from running who is, presumably, wiser then they've ever been seems like a bad idea. Having candidates pass a cognitive test starting at a certain age would probably be a better way to go, but it would cause so much controversy the fist time someone is disqualified, especially if the evaluators could be considered to be from the other team. Norway and the Netherlands have maximum age limits for some judges and mayors (around 70), but not for higher offices, which is odd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2022 at 9:51 AM, RSF said:

I've always found it interesting that public service (motivation notwithstanding) is the one profession where experience is frowned upon.

 

 

I know 90 years olds who are mentally sharper than some of us.  And I know Gen Xers who I wouldnt trust to put together a grocery list.  Sometimes, there is no one-size-fits-all solution.  Not doing the job anymore?  That's what the ballot box is for.

I mean nothing is ever going to change with this, so it’s all just a thought experiment.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2022 at 10:57 AM, renoskier said:

I've known several people who developed dementia in their 40's or 50's and I've known a few who are mentally sharp in their 80's and even 90's :shrug:

making a cutoff based upon a number is the epitome of "ageism"

Is it ageism? Maybe, but I liken more to using statistical analysis to make sound decisions. It's more expensive to insure your car when you're young, why? Statistics. Before the ACA (unsure now) it was more expensive for medical insurance depending on your age and health status. Why? Statistics. Older people decline, it's natural. Statistically speaking they aren't the best natural fits for the positions. They are older, processes have slowed. They usually been isolated from society for a time and don't quite have a grasp on newer technology and how the country is evolving.

I'm open to other solutions such as having civics tests, current event tests, and cognitive tests that apply to all office seekers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2022 at 12:41 PM, Slapdad said:

I agree with this. Wisdom is something that comes with age, so limiting someone from running who is, presumably, wiser then they've ever been seems like a bad idea. Having candidates pass a cognitive test starting at a certain age would probably be a better way to go, but it would cause so much controversy the fist time someone is disqualified, especially if the evaluators could be considered to be from the other team. Norway and the Netherlands have maximum age limits for some judges and mayors (around 70), but not for higher offices, which is odd. 

Wisdom is one thing, but being stuck in a era is another. My Grandfather lived to be 94 and saw incredible technological advancements. He was a war hero, very successful and highly intelligent. In the weeks before he passed he was still sharp as a tack. However, when you would talk to him about what's happening in the world or current events, he was out of touch on many subjects. Times can change quickly. 

IMO 70-75 gives you a little of everything. Cap it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2022 at 12:32 PM, Spaztecs said:

I like the idea of term limits, but the realities are fraught with dark money peril.

House 6 terms = 12 years

Senate 4 terms = 24 years

Age cap at 75.

No more than 24 years of combined House/Senate Service.

Cap out non appointed high level Civil Servants like Fauci. The Deep State types.

25 year SCOTUS and District Court terms. Cap out all Fed Judges at 75.

Moar Congressional oversight of the Chief Executive and his top Cabinet advisors. The Constitution is designed to prevent another Monarchy/Authoritarian. Yet, Congress keeps ceding more and more power to that Executive. Is it just human nature that we desire a Monarch ?

 

I’d rather just double the size of the House, or make one House Rep per 50k people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2022 at 1:07 PM, MetropolitanCowboy said:

I’d rather just double the size of the House, or make one House Rep per 50k people. 

Hell yea, one person “representing” over 750k people is stupid. At the very least I’d like to see the “Wyoming Rule” instituted.

For those that haven’t heard of this, it gets rid of the 435 seat cap on the house and ties the size of congressional districts to the state with the smallest population. Currently that is Wyoming, which would mean that instead of every district having an average of 750ishk people, they would have an average of 580k. I would personally like to see the House expanded by much more, but the Wyoming Rule seems like something that would have at least a chance of happening that would be a small improvement over the status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2022 at 11:41 AM, Slapdad said:

I agree with this. Wisdom is something that comes with age, so limiting someone from running who is, presumably, wiser then they've ever been seems like a bad idea. Having candidates pass a cognitive test starting at a certain age would probably be a better way to go, but it would cause so much controversy the fist time someone is disqualified, especially if the evaluators could be considered to be from the other team. Norway and the Netherlands have maximum age limits for some judges and mayors (around 70), but not for higher offices, which is odd. 

On the other hand in a fast changing world their experiences are possibly no longer relevant in a fast changing world.  I would argue having the two parties stuck in a 1940’s and 1980’s economic model is the advanced age of many in Congress.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...