|
|
|
|
|
by erentz
2950 days ago
|
|
I think there’s something to be said for an limit. A term limit on congress of 12 years might be the easier and more straight forward option. This would probably resolve 80% of the age problem as they’d run over their term before they got too old. |
|
If your electorate isn't wise enough to kick a bad leader out after 12 years (remember, even today the average term is below 12 years), then maybe that's a problem less with the representative of the voter and more with the voter.
That's the big problem here. Political leadership is pretty miserable, but who is electing them? They're just a reflection of society. Kick them out and it is more of the same.
Proposition 140, an initiative narrowly passed by California voters in November 1990, imposed sharp limits on the terms of California legislators.1 These limits will have a dramatic impact on that legislature as an institution. Internal structures such as leadership, committees, parties, and staff will be weakened or made external. This weakening of legislative structures will force most external players, including interest groups, to expend substantially greater resources for a return diminished in effectiveness and predictability. Put simply, the cost of doing business will increase while the return will decline. This combination is likely to advantage groups with both resources and a stake in state government but to discourage participation, divert efforts elsewhere and encourage cheating by others.
Here's an abstract. This stuff is pretty easily Googleable if you are interested.
Also more newsy:
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/bill-whalen/article31032...