Alternatives to Term Limits

[Pangloss]

The problem with term limits is that they "kick out the baby with the bathwater". Good politicians get axed right alongside bad ones -- the choice is no longer with the people, where it belongs.

 

What alternatives might there be?

 

I'll start the ball rolling with this oddball idea just off the top of my head:

 

You cannot vote for a specific party in a specific national race more than twice in a row. So if you vote for a Democrat for your House of Representatives district, and then the same Democrat two years later, you're disallowed from voting for a Democrat at the +4-year mark. You can abstain or vote in an "objection" slot, clearing your "bias category" and allowing you to vote Democrat again at +6 years. Senate slots would be handled separately from one another.

 

In theory a "good" politician could remain in office more than two terms by appealing to voters who didn't vote for them previously. It essentially turns the tables compared with term limits, pulling the focus from the politicians and putting it back on the voters.

[John Cuthber]

Most people vote for a party, not a politician.

Whoever heads the "Right" party will get the votes of the right-wingers and whoever heads the "Left" will get the vote of the left-wingers.

Most people tend to stick with one party for life.

 

Why should I be barred from voting from my preferred candidate (or party).

How is that democratic?

[Pangloss]

Most people vote for a party, not a politician.

Whoever heads the "Right" party will get the votes of the right-wingers and whoever heads the "Left" will get the vote of the left-wingers.

Most people tend to stick with one party for life.

 

Why should I be barred from voting from my preferred candidate (or party).

How is that democratic?

 

For two terms of office you can vote for your preferred candidate. And you aren't forced to vote for a candidate for the opposing party at any time. And note that if your preferred candidate survives his or her third election, you could then vote for them in their fourth and fifth elections. Think of it as a "soft term limit". Good politicians -- those with broad-based appeal -- still get to stay.

 

You're absolutely right in saying that most people vote for a party rather than a politician. What this would do is put a little more power in the hands of independent/swing voters, without tipping the scale entirely in their favor. We don't want to produce a situation where everything swings radically back and forth every couple of years either, of course. This wouldn't produce that, because of the resetting of one's 'bias flag' after one election cycle.

[John Cuthber]

So, after two terms I can't vote for the person or party I wish to.

Also, you plan to raise the impact of "floating voters". Aren't these the people who are most likely to be swayed by political stunts?

 

Surely it would be easier to just ditch the term limit?

That way a good candidate (from any party) would continue to do a good job.

[Pangloss]

Well my suggestion is for cases where there aren't any term limits currently. I'm offering an alternative to imposing them, which is a frequent public sentiment. Sorry for not being clear on that point.

 

I agree independents are sometimes swayed by political stunts, but is that really worse than believing one party over another regardless of circumstances?

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, you'd have to get rid of the secret ballot instead, with your method. I still think that we're better off changing our voting system from the two-party-and-inconsequential-thirty-party system.

[Pangloss]

Interesting point. You could make it really hard for people to find out the identity of voters, but at some level some authority would have to determine if the law was being carried out correctly.

[Sisyphus]

Term limits in general are anti-democratic, but I still wouldn't want to get rid of them. In fact, I'd like to see term limits for legislators.

 

But I guess that's not with this thread is about. The first alternative that comes to mind for me is the system in the Roman Republic (the whole Roman Republic was pretty much based on making it hard for one person to gain monarch-like powers), where the consulship and various other offices had restrictions against consecutive terms, but not on number of terms. In theory this would make it a lot harder to establish the kind of entrenchment that term limits are designed to protect against, but it wouldn't force a good politician to go away forever. This would work best on offices with short terms (the Roman consulships had terms of one year).

 

On the other hand, I can easily see how the spirit of such a restriction could be circumvented. You'd really just need two allies assuring the electorate and the monied interests that each is effectively a continuity of the other, alternating holding office, so it's a de facto dually held office with almost the same level of entrenchment.

[lemur]

I believe the ultimate goal of representative government is to turn voters into independent thinkers. The idea is that whomever you elect will get criticized to the point where you will identify flaws in the ideas you based your vote on, which will cause you to develop your ability to think independently of party dogmas. Of course, some people will spend their entire lives clinging to dogma and refusing to question their assumptions. Part of this dogma/assumptions is that elected leaders are actual leaders when they're really just representatives. People are free to lead themselves so representation is just a means for them to see how ideas they identify with get handled in public venues. Even the laws created are ultimately nothing more than institutionalized expressions of everyday interests and morality. Yes, people who resist compliance with the law get dragged through the formalities of court-proceedings, etc. but most people's experience of legal constraints occurs through "governmentality," i.e. they internalize the logic of the laws and policies and implement them for themselves in their everyday lives. This is how most people self-govern without having to undergo direct interventions. This is not my idea - it comes from M Foucault (Discipline and Punish is the book, I think).

[imatfaal]

Lemur - the idea that you put forward is not so much Foucault's Governmentality as the general normalising influence of law within society. If you want to read more about Governmentality you need to read Security Territory Population or The Birth of Biopolitics; both of which are collections of Foucault's lectures at the College de France, and fairly accessible. If you google Nikolas Rose you should find some superb explanations of the ideas as well. Discipline and Punish is more historical book about the use of prison, exercise, routine, and surveillance/correction in modern society. Governmentality could be seen as a progression from the ideas of D&P from the individual being ceaselessly watched, measured, and constrained to the creation of a society within which control is on a wide-scale basis ie sovereignty (ancient) disciplinary (early modern/transitionary) governmental (modern)