Democracy in trouble, Gore says in book

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

One man, one rule, limited term

How does that work though? There must be some level of continuity in government, especially for standards and programs to be effective. If you have one man, one rule, and a limited term, what happens when the opposition gets in? Don't those programs jus get run over? This is the problem that I see in American politics. It is so polarized that programs that could make a difference never get the chance take root and grow. The last major initiative that America has under took and managed to see through, across multiple administrations, was the Apollo program. Beyond that, it is one part trying to implement a system, only to see it killed the minute the next one takes power. Nothing ever gets accomplished. The system is completely broken, and one man, one rule, limited term isn't going to fix the continuity problem.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Yes, democracy is in trouble when the person you don't like gets elected . i don't know, Flame of Liberty, but if you don't like it....why not run yourself?

Not one person, I said populists like him. Or are you saying that masses do not tend to vote for populists?

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Not one person, I said populists like him. Or are you saying that masses do not tend to vote for populists?

I think you have to be careful in generalizing. People vote for many, many reasons...and get involved in the political arena for many, many reasons. Its not so easy as a carte blanche statement in my mind.

[Bobblehead]

A few things I really don't like about the idea of fixed term limits.

1) What if the person is really good? It is a shame that they lose their position due to some arbitrary time limit limit prescribed at some time in the past.

2) Lack of accountability. The person isn't going to need to be confronted by the electorate. Outside of their own party rebellion (or in the US, impeachment) there isn't much that can be done to hold a person accountable. (aside: If you are for an elected Senate because of accountability issues, I'm not sure how you can then turn around and justify fixed limits.)

3) Lame duck policies. The policies implimented can be dumped as soon as they are gone from office.

There are some things appealing about fixed terms - there have been a few leaders at both the Federal level and the provincial level who just stayed too long and their final terms suffered for it.

But is that really the fault of the political system, or the electorate's perceived lack of a viable replacement?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

How does that work though? There must be some level of continuity in government, especially for standards and programs to be effective. If you have one man, one rule, and a limited term, what happens when the opposition gets in? Don't those programs jus get run over? This is the problem that I see in American politics. It is so polarized that programs that could make a difference never get the chance take root and grow. The last major initiative that America has under took and managed to see through, across multiple administrations, was the Apollo program. Beyond that, it is one part trying to implement a system, only to see it killed the minute the next one takes power. Nothing ever gets accomplished. The system is completely broken, and one man, one rule, limited term isn't going to fix the continuity problem.

I was sort of joking, but if you want to look deeper into it, I'm all for a 1 man ruling body the elimination of parliment or congress of the senate and every answers to him, of course he would need a series of advisors to provide for effective time management, and who could theoretically provide him with the data that he needs to make decisions.

A strictly enforced limited term of 10 years would do for me

[Lurch]

I was sort of joking, but if you want to look deeper into it, I'm all for a 1 man ruling body the elimination of parliment or congress of the senate and every answers to him, of course he would need a series of advisors to provide for effective time management, and who could theoretically provide him with the data that he needs to make decisions.

A strictly enforced limited term of 10 years would do for me

So you like the Canadian system then - really, the PM is in a situation pretty much exactly like this under our system.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lurch

So you like the Canadian system then - really, the PM is in a situation pretty much exactly like this under our system.

I actually don't like the Canadian system for a couple of key reasons. We can't select the leader of our country unless we're willing to accept his party as a whole.

There is no true oversight over the parliment since the senate is basically a party driven rubber stamp brigade, whose interests lie not in the best policy or the best interests of the country, but in how they can work in conjunction with the party that appointed them.

[Azure]

So basically you would tank the Legislative branch CC...and give the Executive branch complete power, WITHOUT any oversight?

Never mind the judicial branch.

What about checks and balances?

*shudder*

[Cube Inmate]

I'm not really big on this either way, but in way of rebuttal....

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

A few things I really don't like about the idea of fixed term limits.

1) What if the person is really good? It is a shame that they lose their position due to some arbitrary time limit limit prescribed at some time in the past.

There's no shortage of good people to fill the job...any job. If a really good incumbent is forced out due to a term limit, then you just thank your lucky stars that you a) had a good person, and b) got him out before the job took its toll and turned him into a typical politician.

The leadership of volunteer, service, and professional organizations often operates with term limits. The term limit is actually something that attracts high quality people to these jobs...they know that they can do a service to their organization/profession for a period and then step back from it without any pressure to continue. It would be great if your average doctor felt that he could do a public service for a while without completely giving up his career.

2) Lack of accountability. The person isn't going to need to be confronted by the electorate. Outside of their own party rebellion (or in the US, impeachment) there isn't much that can be done to hold a person accountable. (aside: If you are for an elected Senate because of accountability issues, I'm not sure how you can then turn around and justify fixed limits.)

How is any politician accountable after he's decided not to run for office again? With a term limit, at least you rule out the speculation as to whether or not someone will run again, and the associated uncertainty about his motivations.

3) Lame duck policies. The policies implimented can be dumped as soon as they are gone from office.

Even if a person's term is limited, he will most likely want to enact policies that will be beneficial to his party's chance of re-election, right? On the odd occasion that a person knows the office will change parties, though, he certainly could enact policies contrary to what the incoming person would choose. Two questions then: First, how often do US presidents (e.g.) enact major changes in their final 80 days in office as a lame duck? Second, how would you characterize the Liberals' retroactive income tax reduction in 2005? They hadn't lost the election yet, but they certainly had a bad feeling about it.

Whose motivations do you trust more? Those of a lame duck or those of someone trying to get re-elected?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

So basically you would tank the Legislative branch CC...and give the Executive branch complete power, WITHOUT any oversight?

Never mind the judicial branch.

What about checks and balances?

*shudder*

Pretty much , of course you would need somebody wise and fair in power.

The judicial branch would be the oversight, you can't simply remove the rule of law.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

So basically you would tank the Legislative branch CC...and give the Executive branch complete power, WITHOUT any oversight?

Never mind the judicial branch.

What about checks and balances?

*shudder*

I think that was just done in the United States for the past six years and has proven to be an unmittigated failure, especially if you like the constitution the way it was prior to this period.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Pretty much , of course you would need somebody wise and fair in power.

The judicial branch would be the oversight, you can't simply remove the rule of law.

Point taken on the Judicial branch.

Power corrupts people....even you.