• MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    I understand the appeal of term limits, but I don’t think they actually solve the problem. If politicians know they only have 2 terms then they are encouraged to play nice with industry contacts since they know they’ll be out of a job soon. Additionally, I think there’s something to be said about knowing your constituents and the inner workings of politics. A lot of political projects take a long time to realize and if people like the plan their politician has I don’t see why we’d force them out. Consistent leadership can be very helpful for long term political goals. I don’t think corrupt companies would care who they’re bribing that year. They’re just as happy to bribe one person for 40 years as 10 people for 4. If you get a good rep then it’s nice to know that you don’t have to worry about vetting a new one every time the limits come up.

    • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      22 hours ago

      The problem with what you’re saying is that your idea of a good representative isn’t everybody’s idea of a good representative.

      • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        I’m not saying they get the seat automatically forever. If people don’t like them they can still vote them out. I just think having a rep with a proven track record that you can vote for helps stop things like the Platner situation from happening every cycle. It’s hard to find people willing to put up with a public life, and often harder to find those that don’t have skeletons in their closets. I don’t know why we want to force people to find a new rep if they feel like their current one is doing well. Obviously people should be able to run against them still.