Right. Just so we are both clear that the incumbent advantage renders many votes moot by means of institutionalized advantage.

I have zero love (or hate) for Fox. I'm a proud Libertarian nutjob that despises the Trump/Fox metastasized iteration of the Republican party.

My personal problem with term limits is that they represent a curb on freedom of speech/expression. My ability to express my political thought by voting for whoever I want to. I do believe however they they will do more good than harm. But it's not an absolute by any stretch, even if I'm forced to argue it like it is.

Goose

You'll find a way to do something stupid regardless of what I say, since you're an idiot and all.

Because you said “as of late” the last 10 would be the most recent, correct?

I think your statement rings false. And you know it. Call it an exaggeration or hyperbole.

Specifically along Baltimore St.

It's not the same thing at all. All children are unqualified for office. Not all incumbents need removal.

Lol that’s exactly what I thought. You admit there are valid reasons as to why certain requirements for the eligibility of politicians to run should be put into place, you just don’t agree with mine. And that’s okay, you don’t have to be for term limits. But you certainly cannot claim I’m removing a choice from the voter when you endorse policies would also, by what you have stated, remove a choice from a voter as long it’s for a “tangible reason”.

I remember when the Bison attacked in Baltimore.

>I think it creates political machines and hinders the ability for fresh legislative ideas or meritocracy in legislatures/political bodies because seniority is given preference, no matter how good of a lawmaker one actually is. Incumbencies of a long duration can also create unfair advantages because the name recognition and familiarity can set up steep burdens for new candidates.

Question K does not get us closer to a meritocracy, it takes us further away by indiscriminately removing politicians regardless of their competency. This policy does not serve your stated values, it proposes a paternalistic system that assumes voters can't make good choices on their own, yet relies on them doing so more often.

>By your logic, a monopoly is okay

Please stick to engaging with stuff I actually said instead of making up arguments for me.

>To further poke holes in your logic, why have age limits or residency requirements or ANY requirements for politicians since it removes people’s “choice”?

There are tangible downsides to having children or people who don't live here as representatives.

Great point. It would be really bad

Because you said “as of late” the last 10 would be the most recent, correct?

I think your rings false. And you know it. Call it an Exaggeration or hyperbole.

Why did you select the last 10 mayors as your data point? I wouldn't consider someone who was mayor in 1975 "as of late".

Since 2010, 50% of our elected mayors have gone to jail. I think my statement rings pretty true, in the modern era Baltimore clearly has a corrupt politician problem.

Voters decide if they want to counter incumbent advantage by... voting for someone else. Not by imposing term limits and removing the ability to continue voting for that person.

F@&K Sinclair. I’ll vote for a well thought out term limit proposal with staggered implementation. We don’t need 100% new council members every 8 years. Some degree of institutional knowledge is good. Too much is stagnation. Maybe 12 years on a rotation basis. And F Sinclair again.

I’ve answered the question several times already, I don’t know how many more you’d like me to repeat it: I don’t think it’s beneficial for democracy or society for a politician to hold indefinite power. To expand upon that:

I think it creates political machines and hinders the ability for fresh legislative ideas or meritocracy in legislatures/political bodies because seniority is given preference, no matter how good of a lawmaker one actually is. Incumbencies of a long duration can also create unfair advantages because the name recognition and familiarity can set up steep burdens for new candidates.

By your logic, a monopoly is okay and good because consumers chose it and we shouldn’t remove that “choice” from consumers. But that’s not always true. Sometimes we do need to ensure one entity (person or company) does not obtain too much power or presence over society or a legislature or a field of enterprise.

To further poke holes in your logic, why have age limits or residency requirements or ANY requirements for politicians since it removes people’s “choice”? I don’t buy the argument at all that setting basic standards and ethics for politicians is robbing voters of their choice.

Duck duck goose! Good dinner, also a wonderful brunch!

[deleted]

The ones in Baltimore will attack you.

20% of our Mayors have gone to prison, not great stats.

GF is celiac and One Eyed Mikes is also able to accommodate her w several options!

Hard disagree. This is limiting all candidates, not bad ones.

>Unless they vote FOR term limits. Then the voters are deciding that the incumbent advantage is undemocratic

You throw the baby out with the bath water by preventing people that are actually good from continuing to serve.

>and we shouldn't be beholden to ineffective politicians just because they got elected once.

Then vote the ineffective ones out instead of passing a policy that's indiscriminate.

As of late? Out of the last 10 mayors 2 have gone jail. About 10 years apart. Y’all get on here and say anything

No. I want the voters to decide democratically if they want to counter the incumbent advantage to combat ineffectual and unrepresentative lifelong politicians. If it sucks, we can repeal it in X years.