I’d double check term limits. We could just as easily create a chain of debauchery as we lose all experienced politicians that might be able to help. There would only be more incentives to line your own pockets when you only got 4 years. I hate seeing the extremely elderly pretend its 1978 too but I don’t think term limits are the answer. I think we need more transparency on politicians, what they represent, their past actions (especially at local levels those people are nearly invisible), and most importantly we need to slit Lobbying’s throat and drain all the blood just to be sure.
Everyone assumes term limits would be something super low like 4 or 8 years. In reality, it’d probably be something like 32 years, which is 8 terms. Still long enough to get a good career, but it ensures that someone entering the senate in their 30 or 40’s will be retiring at a reasonable age. Because the current problem is that everyone should’ve retired twenty or thirty years ago.
Athens used single term sortition as their political methodology during the height of their empire. Anyone who wanted a government position could apply if they passed a test about their field of interest, and the winner was essentially drawn from a hat. After a single term they were dismissed and could never hold the position again.
You’re overthinking this. Do you really think out of a country of 300 million plus we’re likely to be limited to a few hundred competent politicians? Highly unlikely. We just need to educate people, like they did.
Get rid of the senate. It is the US aristocracy, anti democratic, and serves no useful purpose.
Require the house to have more votes (or a supermajority, whichever is less) to repeal a law than were needed to pass it. Edit: this reduces the effect of instability that removing the Senate would produce, while allowing the House to respond quickly to injustice.
Require the House to pass a budget once per term. If they (and the president) can’t pass a budget, the session ends, and they all (including the president) go up for re-election.
I’d say congress should pick the president, but that would tip my hand that I think Parliament is a better system of government.
That’s how you’ll end up with a list of doctors who get a nice pay raise (whether on or off the books) to rubber-stamp candidates through the exam requirement. Honest physicians who are willing to disqualify will have to be mindful of possible retribution as well.
Then it should be an objective test. Familiarity with current events, geography, physics, calculus, micro and macro economics. Final exam of 101 courses would be sufficient. 80% or higher and you get to take office, otherwise the next highest voted politician gets a shot at it.
A board of representatives from the 10 largest public colleges gets to write, administer and grade the test.
If the test is mainly looking for signs of dementia or other mental declines, the test takers themselves could write the test and all vote on it before taking it.
I’d double check term limits. We could just as easily create a chain of debauchery as we lose all experienced politicians that might be able to help. There would only be more incentives to line your own pockets when you only got 4 years. I hate seeing the extremely elderly pretend its 1978 too but I don’t think term limits are the answer. I think we need more transparency on politicians, what they represent, their past actions (especially at local levels those people are nearly invisible), and most importantly we need to slit Lobbying’s throat and drain all the blood just to be sure.
Everyone assumes term limits would be something super low like 4 or 8 years. In reality, it’d probably be something like 32 years, which is 8 terms. Still long enough to get a good career, but it ensures that someone entering the senate in their 30 or 40’s will be retiring at a reasonable age. Because the current problem is that everyone should’ve retired twenty or thirty years ago.
That I can get behind. Even retiring at around 55. But 70s+? Nah.
Politicians aren’t the experts, that’s what they have a staff for.
Athens used single term sortition as their political methodology during the height of their empire. Anyone who wanted a government position could apply if they passed a test about their field of interest, and the winner was essentially drawn from a hat. After a single term they were dismissed and could never hold the position again.
You’re overthinking this. Do you really think out of a country of 300 million plus we’re likely to be limited to a few hundred competent politicians? Highly unlikely. We just need to educate people, like they did.
Here’s my solution:
Get rid of the senate. It is the US aristocracy, anti democratic, and serves no useful purpose.
Require the house to have more votes (or a supermajority, whichever is less) to repeal a law than were needed to pass it. Edit: this reduces the effect of instability that removing the Senate would produce, while allowing the House to respond quickly to injustice.
Require the House to pass a budget once per term. If they (and the president) can’t pass a budget, the session ends, and they all (including the president) go up for re-election.
I’d say congress should pick the president, but that would tip my hand that I think Parliament is a better system of government.
Oh wow I never thought about this. I’m all for term limits but first time I’ve seen this argument.
Perhaps an age limit and physical exam test limit is better?
Airline pilots have a hard age limit. I would think you would want the people running the country to be at least as sharp as a pilot.
You’re all for term limits but this is the first time you’ve seen this argument?
Sounds like you have absolutely no familiarity with the issue and haven’t looked into it or thought about it nearly enough to have a strong opinion.
Well, we’re I’m from originally, we have term limits for politicians of all levels so I have never thought about it.
Thanks for calling me out though.
That’s how you’ll end up with a list of doctors who get a nice pay raise (whether on or off the books) to rubber-stamp candidates through the exam requirement. Honest physicians who are willing to disqualify will have to be mindful of possible retribution as well.
Then it should be an objective test. Familiarity with current events, geography, physics, calculus, micro and macro economics. Final exam of 101 courses would be sufficient. 80% or higher and you get to take office, otherwise the next highest voted politician gets a shot at it.
A board of representatives from the 10 largest public colleges gets to write, administer and grade the test.
If the test is mainly looking for signs of dementia or other mental declines, the test takers themselves could write the test and all vote on it before taking it.