• Tower@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I agree with the Idea that being in a position for too long increases the possibility of corruption. But, I’ll counter with two thoughts:

    1.) Shouldn’t people have the ability to vote for who they want to represent them? If the people of Vermont want to keep on rejecting Bernie Sanders, why should they not be able to? (Valid counterpoint- Dianne Feinstein)

    2.) This is the less trivial one - I fear that term limits would invite more corruption, as the representatives understand they only have a limited amount of time to grease as many palms and make as many connections as possible in their limited amount of time in office. We already have issues with the lame duck period, and those are currently measured in weeks. I can only imagine what I’d be like if a large portion of reps had full lame duck sessions.

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      There are plenty of other things we could do to limit corruption before we rule out term limits for that reason. We could also think about politicians who feel more free to “do the right thing” even when unpopular because they won’t be afraid about winning the next election.