bank secrets

[kandrathe]

Just because the idea has been around doesn't make it good (or bad). And we all know how well the Articles of Confederation worked. But note that even in that (flawed) document, the limit is only on what fraction of the time a person can be in office. It does not limit the number of total terms, nor does it limit the total time in all offices combined.

I'm in support of mechanisms that prevent our representation from being stagnant.

Ever look at how old the top Forbes people are? Or notice how many of them made their *real* fortune after what many consider the retirement age? Dumping a useful person, a person with experience, a person of proven quality, simply because they are old, or have been in a position past an arbitrary time limit, is both wrong and foolish.

My comment about Strom Thurmond, aside, I am not in favor of placing any age restriction on the offices. In Mr. Thurmond's case, as the life long incumbent, it is clear he was allowed to serve well past his effective ability to do so.

A sufficient restriction would be that they could not hold the office for two continuous terms. That would negate the incumbent advantage which could keep a 'fixture' in office. But as long as they are capable of running for, and getting elected to, public office, then for so long should they be permitted to.

Which is better than what we have now in many cases.

No. Some people are involved, the majority are apathetic. That's why most people who vote (and that is already a relatively small portion of the whole population) vote the straight party ticket -- they don't give a damn, they can't be bothered to actually think. Your proposal would hardly change that.

Which is a sad statement in the information age. I believe every election, I should be able to go to a sample ballot, with all the candidates and explore their positions, add my own notes, and print my selections before heading off to the precinct to vote (and some day, when the darn internet is secure enough, I could do it from my home).

Poor analogy. The ground gets more worn out year after year without change. A person gets more experienced as the years go by.

... or complacent. ... or beholden.

I don't see that as too much of a problem. The House is so big, the power so dilute, that even powerful representatives are relatively weak. The Senate might be more of a concern, but it is the two party system, more than seniority, that concentrates power (and worries me, at least as little as the legislature worries me at all).

Still, there are people who have held more than 20 consecutive 2 year terms.

Besides, it is right and just that ancient fixtures rule in the Senate; senate, seniority, and senility all come from the same Latin root. They belong together, :whistling:

Well, yes, then maybe there should be a minimum age limit, say 50 years old and a minimum of 20 years of relevant government related work experience.