He also says better for govt agency heads to be appointed for long terms, not elected, and to be more independent. Eg independent Fed works well.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Seems to me the key gain is to move voters from prospective to retrospective voting. Instead of picking people who share their views, fire people associated with past bad outcomes.
Show this thread -
Another angle: Yes voters are bosses, but bosses shouldn't micromanage. If you bother to hire someone to do stuff, you should hope they many known things you don't, & give them some space to prove that to you. Later, if outcomes look bad, fire them.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Isn't it really a case of saying we need to get rid of midterm elections (place all of them on same 4 year voting schedule)?
-
I contend the opposite: In a world where voter moods are transient, more lower-stakes elections are better than fewer high-stakes elections. Like the US Senate---a continuing body with gradual change
-
That's less about term limits, and more about the two party system. If we had a five party system, then there is no longer a fight to be THE party (because now coalitions are a requirement to reach a majority on anything, regardless of election results).
-
In Europe where they have a parliamentary system and more than two parties, they still have politicians choosing worse policy just before elections.
-
So politicians wait til the last minute to do their homework. Longer election cycle does not mean more thoughtful efforts into policy, just more time for them to waste.
-
They make policy choices that matter all through their job cycle.
-
So what are we talking about? One bad choice every 2 years, or potentially dozens of bad choices over a 6 year period? If election cycle is such a bad influence, then none of them deserve to be in office.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Might have something to do with the financing of elections, not term length. Making them even less accountable without changing the finances may be a very bad idea.
-
I review a lot of evidence in my forthcoming book, 10% Less Democracy, and overall the pattern is that voters appear short-sighted, and policy is worse just before elections. So holding other rules constant--like financing rules--longer terms appear a pretty cheap lunch!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Seems like benefit of shorter terms is democratic legitimacy. If so, the gains from longer terms might be offset by higher risk of eventual mob rule. E.g. what would a 6-year term for Pres. Hoover look like?
-
Seems testable!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How would we determine the optimal length?
-
Hard to do, but having 2 years when every other country has 4/5 is strange.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I also agree. Two years for a new incumbent is barely enough time to get situated in Congress, learn the ropes, maybe legislate, and then go back on campaign again.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Lifetime terms. Assassination as recall.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.