On 01/14/2013 03:27 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
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.
Alright. That may be a reasonable compromise, since it takes
considerable more effort to have a candidate pass as a write-in. I don't
see a particular use for it, but hey, that's what compromise is for :)
By the way, do you disagree with the logic of my "right-wing president
going further and further to the right" example? Do you think there may
be situations where the system would either err short (populist) or long
(keeping someone in power while he overshoots) where therefore, some
correction (one way or the other) would make the system better?
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.
From over here, that seems extreme. There has been a tendency in this
direction with the "two-coalition system" of late, but still, I think
multipartyism will cure a lot of those ills on its own.
Though we don't have term limits, there are multiparty countries with
term limits that aren't nearly as polarized as the US. For that matter,
US politics has had its share of polarization, even before FDR (before
which there were no presidential term limits, to my knowledge).
Asset Voting, folks.
Or PR.
But if Asset Voting simulates parliamentarism, it may be an easier way
to get something almost-parliamentary than having to do costly legal
changes to get parliamentarism itself.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
