Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Corruption Limits.

Greyparrot
Posts: 14,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 10:55:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What are the obvious advantages for the public to allow endless consecutive terms in the Congress?

Does the public really need the politicians it buys to stay bought?

I would prefer non repeating terms. That would eliminate both Lame Ducks, (as they can run again next cycle), and also reduce the effect of corruption as the politician can only stay bought for that term.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 1:08:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 10:55:55 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
What are the obvious advantages for the public to allow endless consecutive terms in the Congress?

Does the public really need the politicians it buys to stay bought?

I would prefer non repeating terms. That would eliminate both Lame Ducks, (as they can run again next cycle), and also reduce the effect of corruption as the politician can only stay bought for that term.

The obvious advantage is that it allows the public to choose to keep someone they like. While they are not too common, there are politicians that cannot be bought. When those people are found, there is nothing wrong with them staying in power as long as the people want.

You should also note that politicians are not just one time purchases. Let's pretend that I'm a corrupt politician. I get elected and my vote bought off by special interest A. If they want to keep my vote, they have to keep paying. They can't just pay me once and expect me to stay their stooge forever. So whether they are paying me this year, or the next sleazy politician in line, it makes little difference to them.

Now, let's pretend that I'm an honest politician that cannot be bought. If elected they can't buy my vote, but they can just wait me out a few terms and hope for a better run of actual corruptible politicians next time. If I can stay in office longer, I keep their corruption out longer.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 1:11:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 1:08:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/28/2014 10:55:55 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
What are the obvious advantages for the public to allow endless consecutive terms in the Congress?

Does the public really need the politicians it buys to stay bought?

I would prefer non repeating terms. That would eliminate both Lame Ducks, (as they can run again next cycle), and also reduce the effect of corruption as the politician can only stay bought for that term.

The obvious advantage is that it allows the public to choose to keep someone they like. While they are not too common, there are politicians that cannot be bought. When those people are found, there is nothing wrong with them staying in power as long as the people want.

You should also note that politicians are not just one time purchases. Let's pretend that I'm a corrupt politician. I get elected and my vote bought off by special interest A. If they want to keep my vote, they have to keep paying. They can't just pay me once and expect me to stay their stooge forever. So whether they are paying me this year, or the next sleazy politician in line, it makes little difference to them.

Now, let's pretend that I'm an honest politician that cannot be bought. If elected they can't buy my vote, but they can just wait me out a few terms and hope for a better run of actual corruptible politicians next time. If I can stay in office longer, I keep their corruption out longer.

Do you think there are more career corrupt politicians or more honest career politicians?

Does that matter in your opinion?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 1:18:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 1:11:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/28/2014 1:08:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/28/2014 10:55:55 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
What are the obvious advantages for the public to allow endless consecutive terms in the Congress?

Does the public really need the politicians it buys to stay bought?

I would prefer non repeating terms. That would eliminate both Lame Ducks, (as they can run again next cycle), and also reduce the effect of corruption as the politician can only stay bought for that term.

The obvious advantage is that it allows the public to choose to keep someone they like. While they are not too common, there are politicians that cannot be bought. When those people are found, there is nothing wrong with them staying in power as long as the people want.

You should also note that politicians are not just one time purchases. Let's pretend that I'm a corrupt politician. I get elected and my vote bought off by special interest A. If they want to keep my vote, they have to keep paying. They can't just pay me once and expect me to stay their stooge forever. So whether they are paying me this year, or the next sleazy politician in line, it makes little difference to them.

Now, let's pretend that I'm an honest politician that cannot be bought. If elected they can't buy my vote, but they can just wait me out a few terms and hope for a better run of actual corruptible politicians next time. If I can stay in office longer, I keep their corruption out longer.

Do you think there are more career corrupt politicians or more honest career politicians?

There are far more corrupt ones.


Does that matter in your opinion?

No, because it is our job (the people and voters) to find the good ones and elect them. As shown above, this cap hurts our ability to keep the few good ones. If there were a ton of good ones and only a few bad ones, then the limit would be good, since when one good one is done, the next good one in line can go up. But right now, there is no "next good one in line." There are a ton of "bad ones in line" just waiting for their turn and we do not need to speed up the line so they can get in.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 1:21:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 1:18:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

No, because it is our job (the people and voters) to find the good ones and elect them. As shown above, this cap hurts our ability to keep the few good ones. If there were a ton of good ones and only a few bad ones, then the limit would be good, since when one good one is done, the next good one in line can go up. But right now, there is no "next good one in line." There are a ton of "bad ones in line" just waiting for their turn and we do not need to speed up the line so they can get in.

So my take on this idea is not about "speeding up the line", rather; companies purchase long term politicians because it takes many years to make a return on their investment. Companies would have a much smaller carrot if they were unable to plan for the long term future.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 1:33:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 1:21:01 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/28/2014 1:18:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

No, because it is our job (the people and voters) to find the good ones and elect them. As shown above, this cap hurts our ability to keep the few good ones. If there were a ton of good ones and only a few bad ones, then the limit would be good, since when one good one is done, the next good one in line can go up. But right now, there is no "next good one in line." There are a ton of "bad ones in line" just waiting for their turn and we do not need to speed up the line so they can get in.

So my take on this idea is not about "speeding up the line", rather; companies purchase long term politicians because it takes many years to make a return on their investment. Companies would have a much smaller carrot if they were unable to plan for the long term future.

Do they? As said, it is not a one time purchase to get a corrupt politician. You don't just throw $10 million dollars at them and they will stick with you forever. You have to keep paying them, as if they were an employee (you could argue that they practically are). So whether you pay me, a five term politician, $10 million this term for my votes, or the next guy, a new corrupt politican, $10 million for his votes, you are still getting a politician that will vote in your favor for $10 million. The cost, and so size of the carrot is not much different.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"