|
Post by jensaltmann on Mar 31, 2010 8:15:32 GMT -8
Given that our legislators haven't been able to push one through to lift term limits, I don't think something that's actually good has a chance. Lifting term limits as in, no term limits? I speak from experience (16 years of Helmut Kohl as chancellor) when I say that limiting the number of terms a given politician can stay in office is a very very good idea. Unlimited terms = unlimited corruption, because the structures simply become too entrenched.
|
|
|
Post by jessebaker on Mar 31, 2010 8:46:27 GMT -8
Given that our legislators haven't been able to push one through to lift term limits, I don't think something that's actually good has a chance. Lifting term limits as in, no term limits? I speak from experience (16 years of Helmut Kohl as chancellor) when I say that limiting the number of terms a given politician can stay in office is a very very good idea. Unlimited terms = unlimited corruption, because the structures simply become too entrenched. America's history of term limits for politicians are funny things: the presidential term limits mainly came from the GOP, to spite Democrats who were able to get four terms for FDR. Of course, this has mainly bit the Republicans on the ass, since they ended up screwing themselves out of getting unlimited terms for their Presidents. Most notably with regards to Eisenhower, who in theory could have gone on to God knows how many terms had term limits not been imposed. Similarly, attempts to get term limits for Congress (especially the Senate, where you have dozens and dozens of lifers who are intent on staying in the Senate for life, with death being the only thing that will free the country from their tyranny) have largely failed due to the incestuous nature of the Beast, as far as entitlement BS that makes older Senators believe that their seats are their birthright. Ironically, it's one of the main reasons why the House has shorter terms than the Senate, as the Founding Fathers largely conceived the shorter term limits for the HOR to allow a greater turnover of Representatives as a balance again entrenchment in the Senate (leading to the joke about how Senators "are more valuable" than House members because their tenure is four years longer.)
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Mar 31, 2010 12:30:24 GMT -8
And if one wanted to put a negative spin on it - which I don't, though I do think it's a weird system - "one man, one vote" it ain't. Trust me, after 2000, I'm no fan of it myself.
|
|
|
Post by paulpogue on Mar 31, 2010 13:46:10 GMT -8
I was never a fan of it at all. And to be honest, I don't fully understand the objection that lifting it would let New York and California totally dominate the elections. In a big way, they already DO -- politicians focus on the states with the big electoral votes as is. Now, there's a certain extra amount of added influence the really small states get from it -- a Rhode Island resident's vote counts more than a California resident's does, because in relative terms, RI's three electoral votes have fewer votes-per-electoral-vote than California's total. But I think that stops coming into play once you consider states with four electoral votes or more.
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Mar 31, 2010 14:32:34 GMT -8
The early struggles over the Constitution were about keeping together a bunch of small states, some of whom were very close to going it on their own. If anything, the population disparity was more significant then--there were a couple large population centers in the original 13 states, and the rest of them could have easily been overwhelmed. As the United States expanded, the new states were naturally less populated. It's only since we reached the Pacific that population density has started to expand significantly.
In a perfect world, I'm generally in favor of the Electoral College framework, but as things have become more and more polarized, (and as one side has been more and more willing to short circuit everything, because they have developed a strategy of getting elected to government on the platform that government is useless) it has become...problematic.
I don't think it needs reforming though, I think we just need to give these idiots the Carolinas and let them starve themselves to death by actually implementing their policies. Not only would it get them out of our hair, it would be a textbook example of Darwinism in action.
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Apr 4, 2010 6:20:44 GMT -8
Jens, you have to ask someone 5 questions.
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Apr 4, 2010 7:09:15 GMT -8
I know. I have a victim in mind, but so far I have only thought up two questions. Strike that, three, as one has occurred to me at this moment. I'm still two questions short, though.
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Apr 4, 2010 10:43:37 GMT -8
Joe Helfrich: many are called upon, and thou art one of them. 1) Which is Your Doctor, and why? 2) If you developed superpowers, would how you use them make people call you a superhero or a supervillain? Mind the distinction, it's not whether you would be a hero or a villain, but how people would react to what you do. 3) Which is the most influential TV show of your formative years (as in, childhood and early youth), and in which ways has it influenced your life? 4) If you could step into the life of one comic book or TV character, whose life would you take over? Caveat: you would not become that character, you would just take over their part and nobody would notice the difference, but you would still be you with everything you know. If they have superpowers, you would have them. Unless, of course, it's superintelligence. 5) What is your general opinion regarding movie remakes?
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Apr 4, 2010 16:45:31 GMT -8
You know, I'm just curious in case I were ever asked Question 4 (because it would change my answer) but if you become a character in that fictionverse, are you subject to the narrative physics?
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Apr 4, 2010 23:16:10 GMT -8
You know, I'm just curious in case I were ever asked Question 4 (because it would change my answer) but if you become a character in that fictionverse, are you subject to the narrative physics? Yes. Nothing else changes. For all intents and purposes, you may think of it as having your mind transferred into the character's body. Or like Sam Beckett's Quantum Leaps, only you'd get to keep the superpowers and retain all you know.
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Apr 5, 2010 4:17:10 GMT -8
Right, but that's not quite what I mean. Say for example, you are in the Marvel Universe, does this mean you will be hated and feared no matter what you do because the population is as dumb as a bag of hammers?
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Apr 5, 2010 6:23:33 GMT -8
Right, but that's not quite what I mean. Say for example, you are in the Marvel Universe, does this mean you will be hated and feared no matter what you do because the population is as dumb as a bag of hammers? Since you would jump into an already existing character, everyone would already have their opinions about that character.
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Apr 5, 2010 6:29:16 GMT -8
OK.
|
|
|
Post by Johann Chua on Apr 6, 2010 1:28:57 GMT -8
Lifting term limits as in, no term limits? I speak from experience (16 years of Helmut Kohl as chancellor) when I say that limiting the number of terms a given politician can stay in office is a very very good idea. Unlimited terms = unlimited corruption, because the structures simply become too entrenched. Yeah, as in no limits. Current workaround is to have wife/son/daughter/etc. take over the position come next election. Constitution says "no political dynasties" but the enabling law just doesn't seem to be a priority. "No limits" seems to be why Congressmen want a shift to a parliamentary system. Getting rid of the Senate would be a nice bonus for them as well.
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Apr 7, 2010 12:52:03 GMT -8
1) Which is Your Doctor, and why? Nine, I think. I never watched the old stuff, though I did catch the movie on Fox a few years ago. But as good as Tennant was (and from the look on his face when Wulf knocked until "I don't want to go" was amazing) Nine's melancholy at what he had to do was a powerful intro to the character. Hmm. I'd avoid getting caught as long as possible, honestly. Probably a bit of both, honestly, since I'd be annoying official powers as much as helping people. Long term...well, that would depend on who won. Nothing really is anymore--I watched some crap growing up. All that's left is a fondness for cars with hidden tricks, and wishing I had access to giant super robot spaceships and secret bases, and really, who doesn't want that? Ha. Ha. Bill Adama, just before sending things into the sun. I mean, even if the sucky last hour of BSG can't be avoided, parking a few Raptors on Mars would be a big big help. In general, over done, and far too eager to take things over the top into Camp. I mean really, to you have to play Starsky and Hutch for jokes? I think it's a comedy on its own.
|
|