[SllX]

The incentives are all wrong. You can serve up to 6 two-year terms in the Assembly or up to 3 four-year terms in the Senate, but regardless of which combination you do, nobody in the California legislature can serve more than 12 years combined across both Houses of the legislature.

So we don’t have professional legislatures with long-term electability incentives or leadership goals, we have a resumé-building exercise that we call the legislature. They’re all interchangeable and within 12 years, 100% of it will be changed out.

[roenxi]

> So we don’t have professional legislatures with long-term electability incentives or leadership goals

Raises an interesting question of who is less popular, the Californian government or the US Senate. The experiments with long-term professional legislatures have generally not been very promising - rather than statesmen it tends to be people with a certain limpet-like staying power and a limpet-like ability to learn from their mistakes. In almost all cases people's political solution is just "well we didn't try my idea hard enough" and increasing their tenure in office doesn't really help the overall situation.

[AnthonyMouse]

The interesting middle ground might be to prohibit anyone from serving more than two contiguous terms in the Senate or four in the House. Then if you've done your two terms in the Senate, you can run for a House seat, do three terms there and then your old Senate seat is back up for reelection. Except your old Senate seat now has a new incumbent who is only on their first term and you're running as the challenger. Meanwhile there are more seats in the House than the Senate, so if you hit your limit in the House you could go work for an administrative agency or run for a state-level office for two years and then come back, but then you're the challenger again.

The result is that you can stay as long as people keep voting you back in, but you lose the incumbency advantage and end up with a higher turnover rate without ending up with a 100% turnover rate. And you make them learn how other parts of the government work. It wouldn't hurt a bit to see long-term members of Congress do a two-year stint in an administrative agency once in a while.

[aldonius]

Interesting idea and I do agree that contiguous is OK but total is not.

I think I'd suggest a more generous Senate term limit. Three terms (18 years) would allow for someone to see out a complete Presidential super-cycle, for example.

The word Senate is etymologically related to "senior", it's a place where you _want_ people to be able to develop a lot of institutional experience.

[DrJokepu]

>The word Senate is etymologically related to "senior", it's a place where you _want_ people to be able to develop a lot of institutional experience.

I’m not disagreeing with the rest of your comment, but I’m going to challenge the notion that this etymological connection carries meaning. The word comes from Roman Senate, and in that context in Latin “senior” really meant people with higher status rather than age. Latin is full of these weird double meanings. Compare to seigneur in French or señor in Spanish. Also, the House of Lords in the United Kingdom.

[abustamam]

Yeah, many words are literally divorced from their etymological root. Literally ;)

[Darrengineer]

I know this is eight days later, but I just want to give sincere applause to this comment. I think this is the first time I've seen 'literally' used in what can be described as "correctly" (i.e., in line with the etymological root).

All those using it to mean 'factually' are out there making a farce of the language. A farce!

[petejodo]

Or incumbents have to win some larger percentage of the vote in order to win over time

[mh-]

This is an interesting idea. Would be curious to hear from someone who thinks this is a bad idea (why).

edit: I see the "term limits are anti-democratic" takes elsewhere in the comments, so I guess let me narrow the above ask to "someone who isn't opposed to term limits, but thinks this idea is flawed."

[6510]

Fill the arena with HR ladies and have them do a battle royal to produce a half decent set of interview questions.

Put the electables in isolation cells fromwhere they one by one end up on the Tee Vee, give voters an app with AYE, NEY and Uhh? The questions are red by the winning HR lady but also appear on the app.

The applicant writes the fizzbuzz etc etc

Then, after the job interview, we give the job to the most satisfying candidate!

It's not necessary but I would also add a series of certificates and diplomas for the voter to show they actually have some kind of idea what the job involves. The level 1 certificate should be supper simple and easy to create. It will grant you 0.1 extra vote power. There could be as many levels as we want but to grow beyond [say] 50 votes should require a mythical effort impossible to attain for 99% while we aim to reserve the right to cast 5000 votes for 1 to 5 people with supper human abilities.

The top 20 should have to explain their AYE's and their NAY's to the Tee Vee audience.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OHm6FsgJM8

[jfengel]

The Senate is wildly unpopular, but individual Senators get re-elected overwhelmingly. The problem is always other people's Senators.

Everyone would like to term limit other people's politicians but they like experience for their own. The length of terms can't resolve that one way or the other.

With the Supreme Court we tried eliminating terms altogether, in the hopes that it would give people a chance to bond away from the necessity of appealing to the public. That just pushed the problem back to getting the most ideologically committed judges on the bench... through the Senators.

I haven't heard any structural solution to the problem of Americans just not liking each other.

[SllX]

Bold of you to assume any aspect of the California State legislature is visible enough to be more or less popular. People at least pay attention to what the US Senate does, and you know that no matter how the next election goes, the US Senate as one body is unlikely to go very far off the deep end in one direction or the other.

[ajnin]

That's a non sequitur. Creating long-term professional politicians is not going to create legislators competent in the various domains they legislate on. It's going to create politicians competent at being elected long term, whatever the means.

[abustamam]

Yeah we need not look further than the 70 year old men in the United States senate/congress who have been in their seats for longer than I've been alive, making laws on technology they don't understand.

I don't know what the solution is for California, but I don't think it's that.

[ece]

The solution is to get money out out of politics. Term limits are good for the exact reason you mentioned. For tech law, there should be some sort of tech committee that knows laws like this are idiotic.

[ImJamal]

California has term limits (up to 12 years regardless of being in the assembly or senate) and this law still was passed so I don't think you are really selling term limits...

[ece]

Term limits do prevent situations like the supreme court, where any institutional knowledge and length of terms can be weaponized for political gain.

Overall, if the objective was to have a non-identifying age flag in operating systems, this isn't the end of the world (though I would have preferred enabling other things I've mentioned here in the past like opening up OSes). If there were younger people in the legislature that tried to understand this better than octogenarians, I think term limits are working fine.

Hopefully parents can use the parental control tools built around this non-identifying flag for some good.

[skissane]

It is interesting that this is a mainstream existing thing in the US (at the state level), but more of a fringe proposal in the rest of the English-speaking world.

I think the answer may be that the difference in political systems (parliamentary vs presidential) and party systems (less two-party but with greater party discipline) solves many of the problems term limits are intended to solve in completely different ways.

Maybe a better answer would be for US states to adopt the parliamentary system? Although there is some debate about what the "republican form of government" clause means, it arguably doesn't rule out parliamentary republicanism, and Luther v Borden (1849) ruled the clause wasn't justiciable anyway. Added to that, the widespread practice in first half of the 19th century, in which governors were elected by state legislatures, was de facto the parliamentary system. I don't think there is any federal constitutional obstacle to trying this – it is just a political culture issue, it currently sits outside the state constitutional Overton window.

While you could adopt the Australia/Canada model of a figurehead state governor/lieutenant governor with a state premier, I think just having a premier but calling them "the governor" would be more feasible

[SllX]

> Maybe a better answer would be for US states to adopt the parliamentary system?

Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t think it would change outcomes as much as people would think, but to scope limit this back to California again because electoral law discussions just fucking spiral anytime there’s no geographic constraint, the root of California’s lawmaking problems is that the legislature is both poorly structured and poorly balanced against the direct democratic approach we have taken for so much of our lawmaking. I don’t think that’s inherent to the non-parliamentary system we have in place, but a result of incremental rule changes stemming from decades of ballot propositions that are supposed to solve a problem, but don’t and tend to have negative knock-on effects that fly under the radar.

Or put another way: the legislature is for legislating. It doesn’t need a competing power structure, and it doesn’t need to be balanced by anything other than a good functional Executive power and a good functional independent Judiciary. If you have that as your starting point, then maybe there’s room to discuss if there are any real advantages of a Parliamentary system instead.

[skissane]

A very widespread belief among political scientists is that parliamentary systems are superior to presidential systems in terms of stability and quality of governance. In fact, even the US State Department's own "nation-building" advisors tell other countries not to copy the US system (or at least they did prior to Trump, I'm honestly not sure if the Trump admin is sustaining that line or not)

Presidential systems have had a terrible run if you look at Latin America. The US seemed to be an exception to the rule, but maybe recent events have shown that the US got away with a substandard political system for so long because they had so many other advantages to make up for that, now their other advantages are weakening and the US is slowly converging with Latin America

[SllX]

I’m aware of the history, but my point is that as a specific reform to pursue, it’s noise.

If California moves to a Parliamentary system but maintains the popular ballot initiative that has undermined legislative power and allowed legislators to disclaim & dodge responsibility, or maintain the system of term limits I originally called out, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s our current bicameral legislature plus 5 Constitutional officers in the Executive branch or a full on Westminster Parliamentary system or anything in-between: you’ll still run into a lot of the same issues because there are no silver bullets.

So I’m not saying it should never be up for consideration, but as a list of changes to make go? It’s too far down the list of serious considerations for me to view it as anything other than noise right now.

[skissane]

I guess the reality is, all proposed solutions have low odds of success, and their relative probability ranking is debatable.

At least something like "adopt the Australia/Canada model" is easier for people to understand, because while a radical change, they can point to somewhere else that has been doing it successfully for decades. Incremental tinkering with the current rules can make unengaged people mentally switch off by comparison; radical changes can be easier to understand because they can be simpler to explain.

I think one problem with the Australia/Canada model, is even though constitutional monarchy isn't essential to it – both countries could arguably function just as well if they were federal parliamentary republics – many Americans mentally conflate the parliamentary and constitutional monarchy aspects. If eventually either or both countries became republics, that would probably make it easier to sell the idea to Americans.

Germany is a living example of a federal parliamentary republic – but the language barrier limits its accessibility as a model for Anglophone emulation.

One backdoor way it might happen – although no doubt quite unlikely – would be if Alberta seceded from Canada, got admitted as a US state, but kept something close to its current parliamentary system.

[SllX]

The difficulty level of changing the California Constitution is not high, and is dramatically lower than changing the US Constitution. The difficulty is convincing people what to change and why.

Flipping the table because it’s dramatic is not my first choice.

[interludead]

That's an interesting point, but I suspect the biggest barrier isn't constitutional, it's behavioral

[modeless]

Your solution to politicians being out of touch with reality is to let them remain in office longer?

[piloto_ciego]

The real solution is that nobody should have power.

[BuddyPickett]

No, everybody should have power.

[iwontberude]

You are saying the same thing, I’m cracking up over here.

[piloto_ciego]

nah, none of us. Power corrupts, pretty much any of it does - so basically we should only have power over ourselves is the only thing I can really think of.

[zdragnar]

And yet, term limits are something many people want in the hopes that it will solve some of the problems in Washington DC.

There, the professional legislators can't get anything right either.

Do you think there's a middle ground of increasing the term limits to, say, 18 or 20 years?

[pwthornton]

Term limits are anti-democratic, and it's just a way for voters to not take responsibility for their voting.

A much more real issue is actually age limits. If someone starts in the Senate at 40 and serves for 24 years, term limits hardly seem to be the big issue. They are retiring at a normal time, and they should still be functioning at a high level.

Conversely, someone who gets elected at 70 and then gets term-limited at 82 is still over a normal, reasonable retirement age. The typical 82 is not in the physical or mental condition to be taking on such an important, high-stakes role.

Both of my parents are in their mid-70s and are in very good mental health for their age. They are very lucid, and my Dad still works part-time as a lawyer. They are also clearly not at the same intellectual powers they were a decade or two ago. Some of it can even just come down to energy levels. I have to imagine being a good legislator requires high energy levels.

Many public companies have age limits for board members, and they even have traditional retirement ages for CEOs. In the corporate world where results matter, there is a recognition that a high-stress, high-workload, high-cognitiative ability job is not something that someone should be doing well past their prime.

Al Gore had to leave the Apple board because he turned 75. In the U.S. Senate, there are 16 people 75 and older.

[duskdozer]

I don't really see why age limits would be exempt for "voters need to take responsibility for their voting".

IMO, the real issue is that voters are coerced to accept candidates put up by the parties due to FPTP. The threat of the wrong side winning gets people to accept someone they don't want. The primary process does not need to be democratic, and the results are pressured by the future threat of losing to the other side in a head-to-head.

[jessicest]

This is true: in general the best fix for US democratic systems is to learn from more functional systems from overseas.

US is running on beta version democracy; it was wonderful for a trial run and we learned a lot from it, but unfortunately the country has been stuck without upgrades for a while. It'd be like trying to connect a Xerox PARC desktop to the modern internet.

Obviously it's absurdly nontrivial to shift it at this point but I do agree that age and term limits both seem to be stopgap solutions due to the challenge of implementing more effective strategies.

Consider Australia: of 226 parliamentarians, there's one aged 75+: Bob Katter.

I'd say there's three features of the au system that keep us relatively free of the absurd incumbency advantages in USA:

1. Compulsory voting makes it harder to solicit votes from a subset of the populace.

2. The Australian Electoral Commission is highly trusted as a neutral body, so Gerrymandering is rare.

3. None of our voting systems use First Past The Post; it's all ranked choice, babes!

[Supermancho]

> Term limits are anti-democratic, and it's just a way for voters to not take responsibility for their voting.

That is one aspect, but not the important one. The most important element is anti-corruption. Legal bodies can always entrench themselves and their own interests. Term limits significantly weakens entrenchment...excepting when the same legal bodies inevitably gut it.

[dddgghhbbfblk]

You're saying that term limits reduce corruption?

That's in fact not at all what the research says. There's a decent amount of research that suggests that they actually increase corruption. There's overwhelming evidence that they increase the power of lobbyists and interest groups.

This is a classic one of those ideas that many people intuitively "feel" makes sense but is actually just terrible policy.

[Supermancho]

> That's in fact not at all what the research says.

> There's overwhelming evidence that they increase the power of lobbyists and interest groups.

There are a lot of factors beyond term limits that influence this kind of research. The most important detail is to remember that corruption spans more than external influence. Institutional ossification has benefits and drawbacks. The drawbacks have outweighed the benefits, historically in the US and England. It was literally baked into the US Constitution to ensure this would not repeat for the US head of state. Notably the Supreme Court was baked in as a lifetime appointment. Granted, the remaining political bodies have not followed suit, I think it's clear that this has had a negative consequence due to the aforementioned entrenchment of the political parties.

> There's overwhelming evidence that they increase the power of lobbyists and interest groups.

It is incorrect to claim that is the only effect. I also don't believe that the conclusion is correct. I do believe it's closer to your initial statement.

> it's just a way for [legislators] to not take responsibility for their voting.

ie It shows a lack of care in executing the responsibilities of the elected position, which is why they barely do anything but campaign at the federal level.

[thayne]

It seems logical to me that a term limit could increase vulnerability to corruption in your last term. If you can't be re-elected, there is less incentive to be loyal to the people you represent.

[Supermancho]

The potential for corruption exists independent of term limits. "the studies" are readily available for investigation.

[rocqua]

Age limits might be an alternative. Say at 65 or 70.

That's at an age where wizened legislators can move into advisory roles, instead of needing to find a next career.

[SllX]

> And yet, term limits are something many people want in the hopes that it will solve some of the problems in Washington DC.

Plenty of shitty ideas are popular based on a hope and a prayer. That’s why you don’t give in to populism. If we’re to impose any kind of limits on Congress, it has to be more intelligent than term limits.

[jonhohle]

How about, if your taxable income exceeds some multiple of the median income of your district, you are no longer eligible to represent them. It’s pretty amazing how much a representative’s income grows once they take public service positions.

[mulmen]

This smells like funding schools based on student test results. Won't it disadvantage the most vulnerable areas? If I live in a state with some poor areas and some wealthy areas why would the most qualified people not compete to represent the wealthy areas?

If the problem is representatives using insider knowledge to enrich themselves then just hire more Inspectors General. If the problem isn't insider knowledge specifically then make whatever allows them to get rich illegal.

[SllX]

How about we stop screwing around and let becoming a legislator become an attractive & competitive job and just hold our noses at the little things that make politicians as a class generally unattractive people? Like not limitless, not with total impunity, but instead of trying to micromanage our way to perfection every fucking step of the way, we accept that politicians are going to politic.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

You are going in the right direction.

I think its more :

if your taxable income during OR post-office exceeds (some 1,3,5 yr average) prior high watermark income, or the officeholder's salary (whichever is higher), every penny over high watermark is taxed at 99% tax rate.

That should take care of those pesky "speaking fees" and other nonsense that makes politicians rich.

[martin-t]

> professional legislatures

That should not be a profession.

Decisions should be made by people who are the most informed about the subject matter. By definition you cannot have someone who is the most informed about everything.

[SllX]

If someone can still keep getting people to vote for them, that’s not really an issue.

We elect the way we do and empower the way we do because it empowers voters to choose on a regular recurring basis who is going to provide oversight that way. When you start screwing around with the basis tenets of electoral democracy, you distort and pervert the value of an actual legislative seat and undermine the value of holding people directly responsible through elections.

Another good example is the ballot proposition system. Some things must go before voters—which is another separate wrong which would be righted—but apart from those, the ballot proposition also presents legislators an opportunity to outsource decision-making risk to voters where instead of having to take a chance of being wrong on a piece of legislation with a roll call vote, they can pass the risk off to State voters. If people voted on the issue directly, they’re not as empowered to hold the people who only put it on the ballot rather than making the decision as someone whose job is to make & pass legislation.

You want legislators to be empowered to serve their role in society so that they are also taking real risks every time they take a stand on an issue that risks pissing off their constituents.

[drdeca]

> By definition you cannot have someone who is the most informed about everything.

This is not true-by-definition . It may be true, but not by-definition. If there were an omniscient person, they would be the most informed about everything.

[mulmen]

I used to think like this but now I'm not so sure. Representatives should represent the electorate, not special interests. If someone invents a civilization destroying macguffin they are the most qualified person on that topic but we wouldn't want them to be in charge of regulating it.

[intrasight]

I agree. Limits are a feature not a bug. If they want a job for life, they should compete for civil service jobs.

[heavyset_go]

Perhaps our republic should be run by philosopher kings

[api]

Long term tenure won't help. Look at the Federal government. Eventually you end up with a hospice center as your legislature.