At 01:53 PM 1/13/2013, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
I think term limits, at least for actual political positions (as
opposed to party positions), have a real purpose, and that they
would still have a purpose under a better voting system.
I'm not going to argue for "no real purpose," that would be silly.
However, term limits can represent a fundamental rejection of a basic
democratic principle, the sovereignty of the *present* citizenry. It
represents the past binding the present. However, it's possible to
have term limits *and* preserve the right of the citizens to elect
whom they wish.
And the Mayor of Long Beach did it. The term limit law did not
prevent her from being elected mayor again, and, properly, it's up to
the voters, right?
However, it did limit her access to the ballot. She wasn't eligible
to *register as a candidate to be on the ballot.*
She ran as a write-in, and she had a plurality in the election. A
majority was required, this was top-two runoff, so when the runoff
was held, she won that as well. She was not allowed to be on the
runoff ballot either (that was going to far, I'd say, once she won
the primary, she should at least have been on the runoff ballot, or
even if she placed in the top two.) There was another write-in, and
her total was still less than a majority, but, as I recall, close.
Term limit laws, like a number of laws, represent one electorate
(these are usually passed by initiative) limiting what another can do.
Some have been talking recently about polarization in American
politics. There are a series of phenomena that increase polarization.
One is the pervasive power of the media, and of money in politics. An
experienced politician can resist, to some extent, monied interests,
having independent public support. New faces may be lacking in
experience and deep support, so are more dependent on special
interest support. Further, to rapidly attract supporters, politicians
need to align with special interest groups that can fire up voters.
It's not just about money.
Politics becomes more about fighting than about cooperation, as the
media portrayal becomes ever-more caricatured for simplicity of
presentation. The Good Guys and the Bad Guys. The *whole society*
becomes polarized. The "Other Side" is out to destroy Everything Good
on the planet. And all issues become polarized and linked. If you
believe in Right to Life, you must be for the Right to Bear Arms, and
against Gay Marriage. Or you are just Not Welcome at the Party.
Asset Voting, folks.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
