Associational rights are at the core of many of the cases determining the extent to which the government can regulate ballots, political parties, and party activity. The results of these decisions shape the nature of political parties in the US. See, e.g., California Democratic Party v. Jones 530 U.S. 567 (2000) (finding a blanket primary unconstitutional under the First Amendment).
There is case law on fusion ballots, ballot access, the structuring of state-sponsored debates excluding third party candidates, etc., that all turns on First Amendment issues.
Hrm. Was that for the Senate too? I just somehow think that keeping people from becoming part of “the system” for too long would help curb corruption and encourage fresh ideas and perspectives on legislation.
Of course, the opposite argument could be made that you wouldn’t have enough experienced politicians in Washington.
And as for the OP, my take on encouraging the growth of a third (or more) party system would have to start by levelling the campaigning field with federal mandates for equal media exposure, caps on money spent, etc or it would never work.
Edit: upon a quick glance of “congressional term limits” from Wiki indicates that it never happened on a federal level, despite popular support for the measure, and foreboding warnings from forefathers and such
Post 32 doesn’t address my complaint about proportional representation and party lists. I want to have parties, but I don’t want their power entrenched in a voting system via party lists. Party lists shift the focus of parties too much toward the political elites.
Actually, no. The opposite argument is that it would incent politicians to loot as fast as they can before the hit their term limits. Term limits in congress also exacerbate dynamic inconsistency and moral hazard.
I didn’t say a particular candidate is being forced upon voters. That’s your statement, not mine.
What I am saying is, What’s wrong with voters electing someone else if they aren’t happy with the services their politician is giving them? Or, to say it another way, if people are happy with the services, why should the people be prohibited from reelecting the politician?
With the right checks and balances, why can’t we have the best and brightest from all sides acting in cooperation, rather than trying to slit each others throats?
We don’t know what the right checks and balances–or rather the right incentives–are. There’s some research going on these days that could conceivably give us an answer, but I suspect that this problem will be computationally intractable.
I recall a political cartoon from after the 1994 “Republican Revolution”: An elephant in groom’s dress, riding in a carriage trailing a “JUST MARRIED” banner, is wearing an innocent rolleyes “Who, me?” expression while kicking out an astonished bride labeled “TERM LIMITS.”
The Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that states could not (whether through the legislature or ballot initiatives) impose term limits on federal representatives or senators.
Sorry, misinterpreted you there. I don’t know the answer to your question within term limitations because there isn’t one I can think of. Perhaps a form of term limits that allow for a previous Congressperson to serve another set of limited terms after they sit out for a term?
I have to admit, I laughed a little when I read this. It’s not hard to come up with problems that can’t be solved by the world’s fastest supercomputers before the sun goes cold. Computing the optimal rules for a complicated political system may be one of them.
Geez, BG, it’s like your posts are a digital switch: either (1) fully articulated, with abundant detail, coherent argument, and interesting ideas, or (0) a potentially interesting point that is about as tangible as the aether.
Sorry. Article I, Section 2 says, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” That’s all. Nothing for or against term limits. Nothing about who does or doesn’t get on the ballot, either; by default that’s left to the states.
It does not even require electoral districts; a state legislature could constitutionally make the whole state one district electing a multimember delegation.