Venezuela: Voters Repeal Presidential Term Limits

[DinoDoc]

Yes, there would be positives lost if legislators were limited in term, but I think his reason for wanting them would be the negatives.

There's this group of people called voters. I've heard rather incredible tales that say this rather fantastic group of people choose thier representatives based on thier performance in office. Should I give these stories any credence?

[notyoueither]

There's this group of people called voters. I've heard rather incredible tales that say this rather fantastic group of people choose thier representatives based on thier performance in office. Should I give these stories any credence?

Given the performance of your federal government, I think you may be listening to fairy tales.

[Arrian]

It goes to the heart of what he said, nye. Voters limit or extend the terms of office for thier representatives at thier discretion. Enforced term limits take away choices from the voter and remove institutional knowledge from the representative body the politician is forced from.

1. I hear you (and Che) on the "taking away choices" argument. I think that's a negative consequence that I'm willing to trade. You're not. Fair 'nough.

2. Experience in government is, I feel, overrated. It's not meaningless, but it often comes along with other goodies, like corruption, sleaze, etc.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

It's a negative consequence that can be avoided with a different solution, one that actually increases voter choices, i.e., public financing of elections. If we leave the problem intact, private financing, then term limits does nothing but swap one whore for the rich for another every few years.

[Arrian]

Possible. :shrug:

Every time I look at the problem, I get frustrated. Your solution, I note, would be vigorously opposed by DD, who shares your dislike of term limits.

-Arrian

[Felch]

My understanding is that the opposition had their civil rights severely curtailed. Peaceful marches weren't given permits and their ability to broadcast was limited. Chavez supporters on the other hand had pro-referendum posters all over government buildings, government workers were being organized to support the referendum, and broadcast media was pushing a yes vote.

And even the Caracas metro obliged passengers to listen to campaign jingles.

My source on this is notoriously biased against Chavez, so I'm willing to hear out others if they've heard different. Anybody know if this was actually a free election, or if it really showed significant meddling by the political leadership?

http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13133562&source=features_box_main

[Felch]

It's a negative consequence that can be avoided with a different solution, one that actually increases voter choices, i.e., public financing of elections. If we leave the problem intact, private financing, then term limits does nothing but swap one whore for the rich for another every few years.

Who gets the financing though? If it's in the hands of political party leadership, it just strengthens them. Strengthening party hacks is no way to improve democracy.

[chequita guevara]

On the contrary, strengthening the political parties means that actual policy differences between parties become important. Right now, you hear all the time, I vote for the person, not that party. That's because American parties are more about which tribe or team you're on, not so much about ideas. With strong parties, if the party stands for something, then you know if you vote for a member of that party, it will get support.

Furthermore, parties should be in charge of deciding who runs on their tickets. I should have no say in who the Democrats or GOP run, and they should have no say in who the Socialist Party runs. That should be an internal party matter, based on who the party thinks best represents its interests. As long as the government apportions money to the parties fairly and equitably, how the parties decide to spend it on their political activity shouldn't be anyone else's business . . . excepting clear criminal activity, of course.

[notyoueither]

On the contrary, strengthening the political parties means that actual policy differences between parties become important. Right now, you hear all the time, I vote for the person, not that party. That's because American parties are more about which tribe or team you're on, not so much about ideas. With strong parties, if the party stands for something, then you know if you vote for a member of that party, it will get support.

Furthermore, parties should be in charge of deciding who runs on their tickets. I should have no say in who the Democrats or GOP run, and they should have no say in who the Socialist Party runs. That should be an internal party matter, based on who the party thinks best represents its interests. As long as the government apportions money to the parties fairly and equitably, how the parties decide to spend it on their political activity shouldn't be anyone else's business . . . excepting clear criminal activity, of course.

Baaad idea.

You end up with a legislature of seals with way to much power in the hands of a few, some of whom are unelected.

[Felch]

Yeah, seriously Che, that's not really a good idea.

First off, primaries exist because a party isn't just party leadership, it's every member of the party. That's why people have a say. I'm against open primaries, because they defeat that purpose, but closed primaries exist for a reason.

Nothing says that strengthening the parties will get you real differences. The LDP is Japan is pretty damn strong, but that only turns it into a political machine that no longer has to listen to the voters. Public financing is yet another way of removing a popular check from the political process.

Like it or not, private financing is a perfectly legitimate tool to keep government in check. People who have a passion about a topic can multiply their voice in the community by donating money to political groups and spreading their message. I donate to pro-marijuana groups, and I'd be really pissed if I wasn't allowed to contribute to what I considered a worthy cause.

How exactly would the parties get the money is a key issue. You say it should be fair and equitable, but how do you judge that? Does every party get an even portion, so that the Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, and Socialists are all equally paid? Then any jackass who wants free money can form a party and demand to be paid. If it's based on popularity in the last election, that just strengthens incumbents, and fossilizes the system.

[MOBIUS]

Do you ever notice how all of his changes increase his own personal power? It just goes to show any country can slip closer and closer to dictatorship.

Was it a 48" ballot paper?

[Traianvs]

My understanding is that the opposition had their civil rights severely curtailed. Peaceful marches weren't given permits and their ability to broadcast was limited. Chavez supporters on the other hand had pro-referendum posters all over government buildings, government workers were being organized to support the referendum, and broadcast media was pushing a yes vote.



My source on this is notoriously biased against Chavez, so I'm willing to hear out others if they've heard different. Anybody know if this was actually a free election, or if it really showed significant meddling by the political leadership?

http://www.economist.com/world/ameri...tures_box_main

Chavez had the oldest opposition media channel, Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) closed in 2007. Apparently this bold move severly polarized supporters and opposition. During the latest local elections in 2008 a number of strategic states came into the hands of the opposition. The mayor of Caracus consequently had to deal with rallying supporters occupying the town hall and other buildings of the local government. Some students campaigning against the referendum were intimidated and even arrested. Otoh I don't know the details, they might as well have been violent protesters too.

[Traianvs]

My main beef with Chavez is his bad governance. Power to the poor is good, but it doesn't help if the newly nationalized oil industry is badly managed. Because of the sharply decreased oil prices, Venezuala needed to import food recently, and stagflation is not a far-fetched idea in the coming years. Jobs for the poor is good, but the fact that so many millions have come to be dependant on the state for their jobs isn't healthy, especially since Chavez uses the oil industry as a political tool.

Privatizing was a good thing for Venezuela, but not in order to use it as leverage for Chavez' political gain and thus enabling him to carve out his own shoddy empire. Notwithstanding he's done a lot of good for the really poor (cf. Plan Bolivar 2000, the social missions, health care, education, cheap supplies etc), he could've done a lot better had he not removed some of the experienced intelligentsia, in particular in the oil industry.

All he's got around him now are bootlickers and incompetent runts

[Traianvs]

Baaad idea.

You end up with a legislature of seals with way to much power in the hands of a few, some of whom are unelected.

It probably won't work in the US, because the States consist of a two-party political landscape. Power would accumulate too much in the hands of a number of incumbents. Otoh this is already the case in Congress and the senators in particular. Looking at the numbers, incumbents have very good chances to fend off newbies.

It works better in a state with multiple parties.

When I compare with Europe, well... the US does have weak parties per definition. Members from different states have a lot of freedom to do and say whatever they want. Hard to say if that's good or bad. Depends...

[The Mad Monk]

You've been parroting that line of the right wing for almost seven years now. When is the dictatorship going to happen?

How long did it take for Mugabe to become Mugabe?