He wrote:
Getting rid of Rich people only, now enforced because campaign contributions cannot be diverted to paying one's bills, so one MUST be independently wealthy to RUN for office is one thing.
Making the entire focus of a term of office JUST THAT TERM (or 2), and limiting the sense of history of the body to JUST ONE TERM(or 2) is STUPID.
Talk about Skewing the system to immediate gratification! Geeze Man? What did you do instead of thinking this through? Brush your teeth?
Please, get real about term limits!
I replied:
of course, term limits should be accompanied by total removal of money interests from the system. Equal funds for each qualified candidate.
History can be instilled through historians, consultants, advisors, in a lot of ways. Incumbents have too much power
He replied:
Do you want a dentist who has zero to two years of training, or ten?My reply:
A Boss?
Legal Council in a lawsuit?
Make your own list. Experience is not a bad thing. Being corrupt is.
In sports, age eliminates players, sometimes after just a few years.
In politics, the power of incumbency ruins the honest election process. While of course, there is a big benefit to experience, there are other ways to deal with retaining it. We could literally pay the best legislative minds to be consultants to congress. But they would not vote. THey'd get respectable paychecks, maybe with the understanding that extra years of service to the government would supplement their pensions. This might be a lot better than the young kids who act as aides to some current legislators.
One thing I do know. It is no longer possible for challengers to have serious hopes of beating all but the worst incumbents. That does not make for building the best legislature.
What do you think?
