Most people donβt care and definitely donβt pay nearly as close attention as should be required to have the right to vote, let alone those who are payed massive amounts of money to manipulate corrupted politicians. Corruption is now or at the very least is well on its way to becoming systemic.
I wish HN would add a new reply button, "It's hopeless and people don't care and its only going to get worse" because it would save a great deal of time for everyone involved.
It's never been less true. Humans have never been more capable of coherent action, and this fact has not been lost on the sociopathic no-upper-limit-to-greed manipulator types who've done well in this nascient internet with its aging, nostalgic noobs. The modern zeitgeist is dominated by the heat from a thousand battles happening in the info-sphere, fought by PR mercenaries and state-sponsored labs duking it out. They must win their battle because that is what they are paid to do, and saying the word "externality" is a good way to get fired.
But. If we can act coherently on one way, we can do so in another, and I take great hope in that fact.
> Corruption is now or at the very least is well on its way to becoming systemic.
It's now clear we have a critical vulnerability in our political operating system. IMHO, the simplest solution is single-term limits. Obviously, there are upside and downside trade-offs to such a policy. However, I think the upsides might be worth the downsides, especially since the system is so clearly being gamed by well-funded adversaries to the public interest.
Based on the sky-rocketing increases in net worth after becoming a long-term career politician, the incentives are simply overwhelming. It's now attracting people with poor, or at least conflicted, motivations to the career. Another under-appreciated upside would be limiting the influence of entrenched, 'permanent' political parties, as seen in the now-eternal two-party duopoly we have in the U.S. No matter which 'side' you may be on (if any), we'd all be better served by a system more able to evolve and adapt to meet changing conditions.
In New Hampshire, state reps and senators are paid only $200 per two-year term.[0] There are also more reps (total, not per capita) than in any other state. Reps end up representing <4,000 people on average--a number someone can actually represent.
And they have to consider every proposal.
You know what the most common decision is? "ITL," or "inexpedient to legislate." In most cases, no, there really shouldn't be a law.
Is it the best system out there? Probably not, but it certainly solves some of the commonest problems.
Requiring politicians to be (essentially) volunteers does NOT insulate the system from corruption. It also seems likely to guarantee well-off people will become members, but perhaps that's not a change from what you see elsewhere in the country.
>IMHO, the simplest solution is single-term limits. Obviously, there are upside and downside trade-offs to such a policy. However, I think the upsides might be worth the downsides, especially since the system is so clearly being gamed by well-funded adversaries to the public interest.
The people in power are the ones to vote on enabling that, but they will never vote against their own power. We already have the power to do this collectively and that is to vote out the incumbent every election as a default.
> IMHO, the simplest solution is single-term limits.
What makes you think that every politician being exposed to the public spotlight for a very limited period is even a solution, rather than an accelerant, to the problem of political corruption?
>IMHO, the simplest solution is single-term limits. Obviously, there are upside and downside trade-offs to such a policy. However, I think the upsides might be worth the downsides, especially since the system is so clearly being gamed by well-funded adversaries to the public interest.
Do you think the government is less complicated than the average software project? Does the idea of firing all mid-level and senior developers strike you as good practice?
Although I don't think the person you're replying to is in the right. There are three branches of government, legislative, executive and judicial and replacing the legislators is probably the easiest out of all and the one that's going to bring the most benefit as well. I think your example is more akin to replacing people in the executive and people who generally "work the ropes" in government.
Systemic corruption is very much a thing, but I think it's mostly concentrated in the legislative branch of government, than the executive or the judicial. I personally think it's easier to add to a system than remove from it, and maybe we ought to rethink the bicameral system for one that is more capable of representing the interests of the general population.
Now, the real problem is that any changes to the system need to come from the system itself :) so there's obvious interests at play that might not be touched.
