[crazygringo]

Obviously they have to follow the rules for how to count votes, establish boundaries, etc.

But there is definitely a serious philosophical argument that term limits are inherently undemocratic.

I personally think they're necessary, but at the same time I realize they are undemocratic. They're literally taking away the ability for an electorate to freely choose.

All I'm saying is, the tradeoffs get messy. Restricting candidates from running can be a slippery slope. Look at what's happening in Turkey, where the popular opposition candidate was just barred from running. How do you know when you've gone too far? Barring candidates can corruptly entrench power, even when following the "rules" to the letter. What then?

[matthewdgreen]

This entire argument can be summarized as "no popular politician should ever have to obey any law." I realize you'll respond that you don't mean anything that extreme, of course. But the set of principles you're trying to articulate are, in fact, exactly that extreme. I don't want to live in that world and neither will you, when you have to experience it.

[QuadmasterXLII]

I expect I’m going to be hearing “term limits are inherently undemocractic” pretty fucking frequently for the next three years

[johnbronnan]

Erdogan has consolidated power independently and undemocratically and is using it to jail his opponents. That is completely different from this situation where a politician is engaging in anti-democratic actions and is then barred from running by an independent judiciary.

> term limits are inherently undemocratic

A society where the people are not able to participate in the electoral process is not a democratic society. True democracies represent the will of all people, regardless of whether they are part of the majority or whether they were eligible to vote in the single election which transitioned the political system from democracy to dictatorship.

[psychlops]

Oh, Erdogan consolidated his power over the last few decades democratically. Rural turks came out in mass to vote for him over past decades. Incidentally, in the past he was actually jailed by his political opponents and banned from politics.

[wkat4242]

> Look at what's happening in Turkey, where the popular opposition candidate was just barred from running.

Ironically Turkey is in this situation precisely because Erdogan removed term limits and spent decades consolidating his power. Same with China where Xi Jinping did the same. And Russia with Putin. All prime examples of functioning democracies, right?

These rules are specially to prevent people from setting themselves up as emperor for life and if they are removed that's almost always the exact thing that happens.

Democracy isn't a perfect system, as much as Americans tend to believe it is. It needs some guidelines to keep it functional. And even with them it's a compromise, not perfection.

[surgical_fire]

> Barring candidates can corruptly entrench power, even when following the "rules" to the letter. What then?

Bold claim. Bold claims require bold evidence. You provided none.

[crazygringo]

Two sentences previous, I literally stated:

> Look at what's happening in Turkey, where the popular opposition candidate was just barred from running.

Are you aware of the current situation in Turkey? If that's not bold evidence, I literally don't know what is.

[surgical_fire]

Exceptional what happens in Turkey does not resemble in the slightest what happens in France.

If France failed to punish Le Pen, they would be takinya step into creating their own French Erdogan.

[crazygringo]

> does not resemble in the slightest what happens in France.

Are you really so sure?

Why was she the only one barred from running from office? Why not the other eight officials also found guilty?

[surgical_fire]

> Are you really so sure?

Yes.

> Why was she the only one barred from running from office?

Because she was judged by an independent court and found guilty of embezzlement.

> Why not the other eight officials also found guilty?

I would have to read the decision to give this answer. Many things are considered when a judge gives out a sentence. Two murders may result in different prison length depending on circumstances, for example.

[crazygringo]

Obviously this could turn into a very long conversation.

I'll just leave you with this considered analysis:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/04/01/why-marine-le-p...

Particularly:

> The crimes of which Ms Le Pen has been convicted are serious, but not of the same order. France’s harsh sentence in this case limits the choice of citizens who are capable of judging for themselves who should get their vote. By creating a mechanism that politicians might be thought to have co-opted, the law encourages talk of conspiracy—especially if, like Ms Le Pen, the barred politician belongs to a party that is founded upon a suspicion of the elites.

> The danger of courts aggressively sentencing politicians is that both the law and the courts become seen as partisan. Judiciaries rely on citizens accepting verdicts with which they disagree. Elections are supposed to generate consent for the incoming government. A poll after Ms Le Pen’s conviction found just 54% of French thought she was treated like any other accused, a narrow margin of confidence in judicial independence. Among RN voters, 89% thought she was singled out for political reasons.

[ahtihn]

I mean you could easily argue that any election rules are undemocratic. The rules for the US presidential election are quite flawed for example.

The rules can be changed but again there are rules for how to do that! It's rules all the way down.

You can't have a functioning democratic system without rules.

The problems start when people start thinking that rules don't matter or aren't applied evenly.