[BigLawMonies]

*Thread Save*

* If just looking at Phil Laak tilts you hard do not read*

OK I like representative democracy in a separation of powers scheme.

I have somewhat strong feelings on all of these issues, except constitutional amendment.

I think that the "meh" responses you refer to may come from the misalignment of some of these solutions with the problems they are supposed to address, i.e. that they imperfectly address a real issue in a democracy or they only prod at the manifestation/symptom of a different problem.

For instance I think our desire for campaign finance reform is rooted in other problems that it does not address-

1. A winner take all system that increases barriers to entry and creates a "race to the center"

2. Vastly expanded role of Fed.Gov --> high stakes outcomes --> money in politics.

Just off the top of my head, there is huge interest by NEA, Archer-Daniels-Midlands and other corporate welfare queens, big pharma (Medicare Part D), AgriBiz (Dow Chemicals, Monsanto for USDA regs + [censored] load of subsidies,etc) in any election at the federal level...

3. Political Apathy...watching 90 Hillary Clinton ads is not going to make me vote for her but just like buying brand name over generic voters will pay a premium for a product they at least know about....

I think a productive means of examining these issues would be to see what problem the mechanism is supposed to solve, the negative side-effects, and perhaps the misalignment.

Let's do a Cost-Benefit on Term Limits

Why Term Limits?

- Accountability: Afraid of divergence of official from constituents (i.e. captured by technocratic, "inside the beltway" thinking)

- Entrenchment Bad... --> corruption (i.e earmarks ensuring perpetual re-elections of congressmen in their districts)

-Entrenchment bad...-> overconfident (and thus poor) legislating (i.e. you turn into Sen. Joe "[censored] your personal autonomy and point of view i've been in the politics game for 4000 [censored] ing years so I know what is best for your dumb ass" Biden)

- Term limits = bulwark against tyranny (i.e. prevent a slippery slope to President-for-life)

Why not term limits?

- Forces loss of great leadership in some cases

- Thwarts people's will to re-elect (anti-democratic)

- Term-limits --> no accountability in last term, plus no accounting of future costs (aka [censored] the next guy)

- Entrenchment Good...expertise in governance and issues instead of having to "re-train" new congressmen constantly. The alternative is congress relies on industry experts and other interest groups (information-interest tradeoff).

- Entrenchment Good... need strong legislature to combat explosion in executive power..

- Entrenchment Good...alternative is government by bureaucrats and unelected agencies.

Conclusion: I think that there just must be an answer that makes officials accountable and not corrupt without kneecapping the legislative branch with term limits. The answer for people who believe in small government is generally to lower the stakes of elections and elective office and to rely on a more solid skeletal scheme of separation of powers.

Ultimately you have to decide where you stand philosophically on terms limits by looking at certain continuums:

efficiency vs. fear of tyranny

belief expertise vs. belief in common sense

etc.

Whatcha think?