I hope they vote him out now, on principle.

Term limits are there for a reason.

Witchydiva: I hope they vote him out now, on principle.

Term limits are there for a reason.

You would think but I can't believe how many people supported this. It's unbelievable.

Term limits seem a little anti-democratic. I'm sure there are good reasons for them but artificially limiting voter choice just gives me a bad feeling.

7of7: I'm sure there are good reasons for them but artificially limiting voter choice just gives me a bad feeling.

You'd prefer someone like.. oh, I don't know.. Hugo Chavez?

Alacritous: You'd prefer someone like.. oh, I don't know.. Hugo Chavez?

I guess if that's who the voters want then that's who the voters get.

I'd rather Emperor Bloomberg then the Court Jesters that want to replace him.

I have always been against term limits. It's like telling the voters that they aren't smart enough to think for themselves. For the record I don't like Bloomberg but I don't live in New York City and only visit there occasionally so what I think (of Bloomberg) doesn't matter.

7of7: Term limits seem a little anti-democratic.

It's a good thing we're a constitutional republic.

benlonghair: It's a good thing we're a constitutional republic.

They seem anti-constitutional republic too. How can you elect someone to represent you if the best person available isn't allowed to run anymore?

The issue isn't really term limits. It's the fact that Bloomberg basically had the law changed so he could run again. This ain't Zimbabwe.

I liked the people who said "this should be put to a referendum".

IT IS BEING PUT TO A REFERENDUM, IT'S CALLED THE GENERAL ELECTION

The truth is Bloomberg, despite his faults, is probably the best NYC can deal with right now.

People do understand that just because he's running again doesn't mean he will win again, right? And that it wasn't so very long ago that NYC had a three term mayor that ran for a fourth term and lost in the primary, right?

Or have people not noticed that Ed Koch is no longer the mayor of New York City?

7of7: Term limits seem a little anti-democratic. I'm sure there are good reasons for them but artificially limiting voter choice just gives me a bad feeling.

it's a safeguard against corruption of the system.

I don't like term limits on total number of terms, but I'm fine with term limits on consecutive terms.

In fact, I would prefer members of Congress to have no consecutive terms. One term in, sit out one election cycle, and so on. That would break up the power of incumbency a bit, force elected officials to actually live in the district for a couple of years between terms in office, and would result in a group of capable (or at least experienced) people who could be appointed or run in a special election in the case of death or retirement of a sitting legislator.

Snarfangel: In fact, I would prefer members of Congress to have no consecutive terms. One term in, sit out one election cycle, and so on.

Congress would implode. Almost everything is based on seniority. And honestly, I don't think anything at all would happen in the House. By the time you have half a clue what's going on, your two year term is up.

RodneyToady: Snarfangel: In fact, I would prefer members of Congress to have no consecutive terms. One term in, sit out one election cycle, and so on.

Congress would implode. Almost everything is based on seniority. And honestly, I don't think anything at all would happen in the House. By the time you have half a clue what's going on, your two year term is up.

But they could run again in two years, or run for Senator, or Governor, or President. Having a definite end to their term would focus their attention a bit.

It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love New York City. The powers you give me I will lay down when this crisis has be abated! My first act, with this new authority, is to create a Grand Inquisition of Wall Street, to counter the increasing threat of the Failed Executives.

"Pray that i do not alter the term limits any further." -Bloomberg

NY could look at Chicago to see how bad an idea this is. All hail King Daley!

People are stupid. Power corrupts. Term limits are good, but the stupidity of the people will take care of that. It is only a matter of time before a popular dictator takes over our country.

urger: I'd rather Emperor Bloomberg then the Court Jesters that want to replace him.

Court jesters can actually be funny once in a while. Please don't slander them with comparisons to NYC politicians.

--

Anyway, here's your elegant solution - in the off-year election prior to their regular election, hold a referendum as to whether or not the mayor and senior members of (in this case) the city council may run for re-election. Up or down on the lot of them. With a "no" vote the backbenchers get to move up in the ranks - but then if they screw the pooch they'll be out on their asses as well.

This would work wonders in a place like Albany that's populated with legislators-for-life who are more likely to die in office or be indicted in office than to ever lose an election.

Glad ta see youse guys on da east coast are getting wit da times.

/The New York Sun King is there?

AnubisMan: "Pray that i do not alter the term limits any further." -Bloomberg

Lobot for Mayor!

Snarfangel: Congress would implode. Almost everything is based on seniority. And honestly, I don't think anything at all would happen in the House.

So you're saying there'd be no difference?

There's no term limits in British politics, and we haven't all fallen under the rule of a single ruler just ye... hmm, hang on a second..

7of7: benlonghair: It's a good thing we're a constitutional republic.

They seem anti-constitutional republic too. How can you elect someone to represent you if the best person available isn't allowed to run anymore?

But they do serve an important function. Incumbents in many elections, especially those without highly publicized debates and information, are much more likely to be reelected for the simple fact that the voters already know them.

Frank Anthrax: But they do serve an important function. Incumbents in many elections, especially those without highly publicized debates and information, are much more likely to be reelected for the simple fact that the voters already know them.

Shows how much you know. The incumbency rate in Congress is only 95%. That's practically 50/50.

burndtdan: it's a safeguard against corruption of the system.

Does it work?

Hetfield: burndtdan: it's a safeguard against corruption of the system.

Does it work?

The only place we have term limits in the federal system is the President. I'd say it works there. Does it work for the legislative branch? We don't know. It hasn't been tried.

This is Obama's first step towards Chavez like greatness. It will happen.

7of7: Term limits seem a little anti-democratic. I'm sure there are good reasons for them but artificially limiting voter choice just gives me a bad feeling.

I think it's a good ideas for executive branches but not legislature. I also believe it is anti-democratic, but like all things democracy is not perfect.

Having no term limits for executives makes it to easy for someone to fix it so they can win every time. Where the power will become institutionalized.


The difference with a legislature is one person does not have all the power like an executive branch.

Bhasayate: This is Obama's first step towards Chavez like greatness. It will happen.

You are a crazy person, find some help.

Corvus: Bhasayate: This is Obama's first step towards Chavez like greatness. It will happen.

You are a crazy person, find some help.

Chavez did it. You think someone with enough power and popularity can't do it in this country? FDR would have been president for life had we not changed the Constitution. We can always change it back if we want to.

badhatharry: Corvus: Bhasayate: This is Obama's first step towards Chavez like greatness. It will happen.

You are a crazy person, find some help.

Chavez did it. You think someone with enough power and popularity can't do it in this country? FDR would have been president for life had we not changed the Constitution. We can always change it back if we want to.

Tell me you're a troll.

7of7: Term limits seem a little anti-democratic. I'm sure there are good reasons for them but artificially limiting voter choice just gives me a bad feeling.

Technically, FDR *was* President for life.

I do agree that this is good news... for Space Emperor Obama.

I'm a life-long Democratic voter and generally think term-limits are stupid, but I would vote against Bloomberg just because.

urger: I'd rather Emperor Bloomberg then the Court Jesters that want to replace him.

I concur, and will vote for Bloomberg again.

/NYC Democrat

lajimi: I have always been against term limits. It's like telling the voters that they aren't smart enough to think for themselves.

Protip: they aren't.

DasDingus: lajimi: I have always been against term limits. It's like telling the voters that they aren't smart enough to think for themselves.

Protip: they we aren't.

So we get the government we deserve. The system WORKS!

lajimi: I have always been against term limits. It's like telling the voters that they aren't smart enough to think for themselves.

Almost half the country was ready to rally around this woman:



I love my country. But goddamnit people here are getting dumber by the nanosecond. Half of them would stick a needle in their eye if Steve Jobs or Pete Wentz told them it was the new thing to do.

RodneyToady: People do understand that just because he's running again doesn't mean he will win again, right? And that it wasn't so very long ago that NYC had a three term mayor that ran for a fourth term and lost in the primary, right?

Or have people not noticed that Ed Koch is no longer the mayor of New York City?

Huh. Next thing, you'll be telling me Batista isn't in charge of Cuba anymore.

/If this is obscure, I'll shiat a brick

Corvus: 7of7: Term limits seem a little anti-democratic. I'm sure there are good reasons for them but artificially limiting voter choice just gives me a bad feeling.

I think it's a good ideas for executive branches but not legislature. I also believe it is anti-democratic, but like all things democracy is not perfect.

Having no term limits for executives makes it to easy for someone to fix it so they can win every time. Where the power will become institutionalized.


The difference with a legislature is one person does not have all the power like an executive branch.


In the federal government, no one branch holds all the power. There are these things called checks and balances. Just because Congress has acted like a lap dog for the better part of the last decade doesn't mean they don't still technically hold the ability to check the president's power. And its absolute tripe to suggest that there cannot be a consolidation of power among legislators. Look at strom thurmond or jesse helms. They held tremendous sway for a long time. I'll say that term limits for Congress should be a little bit more than for president, but I don't think they're a bad idea in all.

Watchmen Nixon approves.

">

7of7: Term limits seem a little anti-democratic. I'm sure there are good reasons for them but artificially limiting voter choice just gives me a bad feeling.

And you'd be wrong:

"Term limits have a long history. Ancient Greece and ancient Rome, two early civilizations which had elected offices, both imposed limits on some positions."

Link (new window)

7of7: Term limits seem a little anti-democratic. I'm sure there are good reasons for them but artificially limiting voter choice just gives me a bad feeling.

It was the voters of New York City that voted the limits referendum into law and at the time Bloomberg supported that choice because the mayor at the time was Rudy Guilani. Now that it's Bloomberg who's the mayor, he wants to get rid of something that he supported in the first place.

Goimir: I liked the people who said "this should be put to a referendum".

IT IS BEING PUT TO A REFERENDUM, IT'S CALLED THE GENERAL ELECTION

Maybe it's because the original term limits law was voted on via referendum.