Terms of office: one term

[margrace]

I was told that in Finland a person can only run for a four year term of office. After this he/she is required to step down. If that was implimented here how would it plan out? Would we get good people in there doing what they promise or crooks in there for their own immediate gain? What do you think?

[M.Dancer]

I was told that in Finland a person can only run for a four year term of office. After this he/she is required to step down. If that was implimented here how would it plan out? Would we get good people in there doing what they promise or crooks in there for their own immediate gain? What do you think?

We don't have offices in Canada, we have Governments made up of members..Could you imagine what it would be like if everyone could only run once? In every election, in every gov't....everyone would be an inexperianced rookie....

Edited July 29, 2008 by M.Dancer

[g_bambino]

I was told that in Finland a person can only run for a four year term of office. After this he/she is required to step down. If that was implimented here how would it plan out? Would we get good people in there doing what they promise or crooks in there for their own immediate gain? What do you think?

As this is in the United States Politics section, I'm not sure what you mean by "we." But if it is in reference to Canadians, then Dancer is right; ministries are created, merged, and disbanded as needed, which means the ministers overseeing them could never have a fixed term. Plus, in the Canadian system, the government could fall any time before four years is up. A much more flexible way of doing things.

[margrace]

We don't have offices in Canada, we have Governments made up of members..Could you imagine what it would be like if everyone could only run once? In every election, in every gov't....everyone would be an inexperianced rookie....

So and wouldn't it be terrible if they had to keep the pomises they made to get elected.

[g_bambino]

So and wouldn't it be terrible if they had to keep the pomises they made to get elected.

No, it wouldn't. But that has nothing to do with fixed terms in office.

[eyeball]

"Politicians are like diapers, they need changing often, and for the same reason."

Robin Williams.

[M.Dancer]

So and wouldn't it be terrible if they had to keep the pomises they made to get elected.

How nd why..under that one office rule there is no incentive for themto be re-elected....

[Moonlight Graham]

No, it wouldn't. But that has nothing to do with fixed terms in office.

He's right. If it was only 1 fixed term, everyone would lie to get in office and they would have little reason to keep the promises because they won't have to run again.

I'd like to see a cap on the # of years an individual can be Prime Minister though. Like 10 or something. The PM has a massive amount of power in the Canadian gov't, especially compared to the U.S. president vs the rest of the U.S. gov.

anyways this is in the wrong forum

[margrace]

How nd why..under that one office rule there is no incentive for themto be re-elected....

So wouldn't it be incumbant of the voter to be aware of what is promised to be aware of the person they are voting for and what their agenda might be. Seems to me that people posting on here do have their own agendas.

We all need to change our agendas from asking what will I get out of this to what is best for everyone. The very fact that what is happening in Ontario really could be forseen and could have been avoided. Why are we spending Billions on highways when the car market is in such chaos and the price of gas is so high.

A few questions like this might be helpful, a little more awareness of what is going on around us.

[margrace]

How nd why..under that one office rule there is no incentive for themto be re-elected....

I believe this is the problem, do we have no faith in the honesty of our fellow man or do we applaud the person whe gets away with being dishonest. All too often I hear the excuse we can't change it, every man for himself.

[M.Dancer]

I believe this is the problem, do we have no faith in the honesty of our fellow man or do we applaud the person whe gets away with being dishonest. All too often I hear the excuse we can't change it, every man for himself.

Well it is obvious you have no faith otherwise you wouldn't try a float every notion than you stumble upon.

I'm just saying that a one term only system ensures that the government is made up of people with no experiance, whether they are honest or not. That is a recipe for ineptitude.

[M.Dancer]

So wouldn't it be incumbant of the voter to be aware of what is promised to be aware of the person they are voting for and what their agenda might be. Seems to me that people posting on here do have their own agendas.

We all need to change our agendas from asking what will I get out of this to what is best for everyone. The very fact that what is happening in Ontario really could be forseen and could have been avoided. Why are we spending Billions on highways when the car market is in such chaos and the price of gas is so high.

A few questions like this might be helpful, a little more awareness of what is going on around us.

Only if first you let us know what it is you are talking about. Are you suggesting that a crumbling road system is better when the auto market is in shmables and the price of gas is high? WHat forn the love of dog does that have to do with whether only inexperianced political hopefuls are allowed to run?

[Wilber]

How would you like to get on an airplane to travel across the Atlantic where both pilots had just got their licenses the day before?

As this is on the US Politics forum, in the US, the two term limit only applies to the President, not Congress.

[margrace]

Okay lets start this again. I didn't realize that it was an American site I was on before.

But could we not look at this in this way.

Someone is persuaded by the electrate to run for office.

They reason being that we know their beliefs and we trust them

So they go in with the idea of doing what the electrate wants.

So why would it not work or have we become so inured in evil politics that we could not countenance an honest person in there.

[madmax]

Okay lets start this again. I didn't realize that it was an American site I was on before.

But could we not look at this in this way.

Someone is persuaded by the electrate to run for office.

They reason being that we know their beliefs and we trust them

So they go in with the idea of doing what the electrate wants.

So why would it not work or have we become so inured in evil politics that we could not countenance an honest person in there.

Don't want or like fixed 4 year terms. Regardless we have it in Ontario.

[M.Dancer]

Don't want or like fixed 4 year terms. Regardless we have it in Ontario.

That isn't what Mergrace is positing, forgive her, she is somewhat inarticulate.

She heard somewhere that in Finland politicians are only allowed to hold office once and for only 4 years. So basically she wants all politicians to be rookies with little or no governmental administrative experience. Sort of like a perpetual government of Bon Rae, except with even less experience.

Why Margrace thinks this might be a good thing I'm sure she doesn't really know except that they do it in Finland and in Finland they have saunas and supply Santa with his Reindeer.

[margrace]

Dancer I am wondering exactly what you think would happen if we had four year terms?

[margrace]

Dancer I am wondering exactly what you think would happen if we had four year terms?

Would only being able to be elected for four years affect your job?

[margrace]

How many of our federal and provincially elected members of parliment are career politicians and do you not think that by only allowing one term in office we would get rid of these self serving politicians. Think about it.

[g_bambino]

Dancer I am wondering exactly what you think would happen if we had four year terms?

We already have fixed "terms" for MPs; since 1867, parliament's life has been limited to five years. That means each MP faces an election at least every half-decade. As Cabinet ministers generally sit in the House of Commons, then they too face re-election at least every five years.

How many of our federal and provincially elected members of parliment are career politicians and do you not think that by only allowing one term in office we would get rid of these self serving politicians. Think about it.

Not only would limiting a politician to one four year stint dissuade anyone from entering politics (why would you quit what you have and take on a new job knowing you'd be fired four years later?), if someone did run, knowing that they wouldn't have to face re-election, they would have no incentive to care about doing well while in office. If anything, it would make politics more self-serving: lie to get elected, sit around and do nothing, get paid, make whatever deals you can because of your position, and move on four years later.

As it stands now, we are the ones who are supposed to hold our politicians accountable, either through our representatives - if the government loses the confidence of the House, it falls - or through our ballots - if a politician has done a poor job, they should be replaced by someone else. This doesn't get rid of self-interest - self-serving politicians have been around since politics began, and will be until politics ends - but it should, along with the other checks in place, help to keep it to a minimum. If politicians are getting more and more greedy, and getting away with hoarding more and more power, then the first people to look at is ourselves.

Edited August 1, 2008 by g_bambino

[margrace]

We already have fixed "terms" for MPs; since 1867, parliament's life has been limited to five years. That means each MP faces an election at least every half-decade. As Cabinet ministers generally sit in the House of Commons, then they too face re-election at least every five years.

Not only would limiting a politician to one four year stint dissuade anyone from entering politics (why would you quit what you have and take on a new job knowing you'd be fired four years later?), if someone did run, knowing that they wouldn't have to face re-election, they would have no incentive to care about doing well while in office. If anything, it would make politics more self-serving: lie to get elected, sit around and do nothing, get paid, make whatever deals you can because of your position, and move on four years later.

Isn't there a more positive way to look at this. Someone or all of us could decide to elect someone who is rated as a good person. Do you not think this could happen and good things could happen. Negativism is the bane of our life, instead of seeing the glass half full too many of us see it as half empty. So If a person runs would it only be self interest people?

As it stands now, we are the ones who are supposed to hold our politicians accountable, either through our representatives - if the government loses the confidence of the House, it falls - or through our ballots - if a politician has done a poor job, they should be replaced by someone else. This doesn't get rid of self-interest - self-serving politicians have been around since politics began, and will be until politics ends - but it should, along with the other checks in place, help to keep it to a minimum. If politicians are getting more and more greedy, and getting away with hoarding more and more power, then the first people to look at is ourselves.

Perhaps if we as a voting public paid more attention to who and what people are we might get better government.

[g_bambino]

Isn't there a more positive way to look at this. Someone or all of us could decide to elect someone who is rated as a good person. Do you not think this could happen and good things could happen. Negativism is the bane of our life, instead of seeing the glass half full too many of us see it as half empty. So If a person runs would it only be self interest people?

But, how is this person "rated" as "good" in the first place? Don't politicians already make promises in order to appear "good"? I don't think the cynicism about politicians is anything new at all; throughout history, the infallible and self-sacrificing politician has been a rare breed.

Perhaps if we as a voting public paid more attention to who and what people are we might get better government.

I can agree with that. Too many sound-bites and self-referential entertainment posing as "news" makes for very dumb people (except on what Paris Hilton's latest break-down was about).