I'm not as knee-jerk for term limits as some people out there. I don't understand what the big deal is...if a public official is either doing a good enough job to have people come out to vote for him to stay in office, or is NOT doing a shitty enough job to compel enough people to come out and vote AGAINST him, then who cares? A democracy is about the voters - if Hitler can come back and win elections, well then that's what we want. It's on us. Does NObody wonder how things might've been different if Clinton could've run for a third time? That's an argument for term limits actually being BAD - the automatic turnover sense in voters thinking "well, we might as well switch to the complete opposite now, for no real reason other than there has to be a change."
Besides, as people like to say: we already HAVE term limits. They're called "elections."
3 comments:
though i say the latter often, what we need is true campaign reform. gov't funded races with no outside $$$, equal opportunity, mandatory debates, etc. it's virtually impossible to lose your congressional seat these days. which i why i find that "congressional approval rating" so ludicrous. why are their retention rates in the 90s every election cycle?
agreed.
I am against term limits. That said, I don't like the way Bloomberg is doing this. And you just know in his third term he's banning pizza.
I can see it now:
"I've decided that Pizza is bad for everyone. You'll hate me now, but later you will thank me."
Post a Comment