Limited Term Government

Mick Regan

hi all,

Any thoughts on the following...

I've been pondering on the benefits of a political change whereby any one party can only be in government for a maximum of two consecutive terms.

I'm looking for feedback on whether it's an idea worth pursuing. Not interested in technical objections, more on whether the general concept has merits in its own right.

I have my own thoughts as to why it might be advantageous, but any feedback appreciated.

Thanks,

Mick.

Hazlittle

1-Anti democratic. Since a government with less votes are in power.

2-Put emphasis on party politics than individual TD. So corrupt politicians will go with popular parties and honest politicians will go with less popular parties.

3-As Leo Varadkar says, the government is suppose to be a sub-committee of the Dail not the other way around.

Privatising the Dail is a better solution.

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

2-Put emphasis on party politics than individual TD. So corrupt politicians will go with popular parties and honest politicians will go with less popular parties.

The problem with party politics emphasis is that it is even worse for ensuring corrupt politicians. A politician will be awarded for loyalty to the party if they party does the selection rather

Hazlittle wrote: »

3-As Leo Varadkar says, the government is suppose to be a sub-committee of the Dail not the other way around.

How would this work? The Government is the party with the most votes (unless it is a minority government), so I'd be interested in hearing the government could work as a sub-committee of the Dáil, given that it needs the Dáil votes to stay in power.

Hazlittle wrote: »

Privatising the Dail is a better solution.

How would this work?

Mick Regan

Hi Guys,

My thoughts on this are fairly rough, but maybe something along the following lines...?

1. Assuming a party (or coalition) has ruled for 2 consecutive terms the party (or largest party if a coalition) stands down from the next general election.

2. The country then elects a new government from the remaining parties.

3. Once a new government has been formed the outgoing party automatically goes into opposition with e.g, 10 seats less than the formed government. (Mechanism for how those seats are appointed to be determined).

Maybe additional rules such as an individual cannot transfer from one party to another, say within 2 years of end of term.

The technicalities of this are secondary in my mind at moment, but some of the advantages might be:

- Encourage the electorate to move away from the 'blind loyalty' factor and look more closely at policies.
- Encourage the growth of more than two major parties.
- Create a more competitive general election process, not the current two horse race.
- Reduce complacency associated with long periods of power.
- Reduce corruption associated with long periods of power.
- Encourage more electorate participation in elections.
- Move away from the career politician mentality.

Regards democracy, any such change to the political system would probably need a referendum.

Anyway that's a snapshot - late in the evening!, but would be good to hear if it's right off beam, or not!

Hazlittle

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The problem with party politics emphasis is that it is even worse for ensuring corrupt politicians. A politician will be awarded for loyalty to the party if they party does the selection rather

I'm against party politics.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

How would this work? The Government is the party with the most votes (unless it is a minority government), so I'd be interested in hearing the government could work as a sub-committee of the Dáil, given that it needs the Dáil votes to stay in power.

A separation of the executive and legislation. Similar to yankee land or Switz.

The Dail gives the government legislation, the government implements it. Naturally the biggest party de facto becomes the government like todays system but we could lose the party whips.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

How would this work?

I'm anarchist so I favour replacing alll govenrment functions with a private company.

Mick Regan wrote: »

Hi Guys,

My thoughts on this are fairly rough, but maybe something along the following lines...?

1. Assuming a party (or coalition) has ruled for 2 consecutive terms the party (or largest party if a coalition) stands down from the next general election.

2. The country then elects a new government from the remaining parties.

3. Once a new government has been formed the outgoing party automatically goes into opposition with e.g, 10 seats less than the formed government. (Mechanism for how those seats are appointed to be determined).

Maybe additional rules such as an individual cannot transfer from one party to another, say within 2 years of end of term.

The technicalities of this are secondary in my mind at moment, but some of the advantages might be:

- Encourage the electorate to move away from the 'blind loyalty' factor and look more closely at policies.
- Encourage the growth of more than two major parties.
- Create a more competitive general election process, not the current two horse race.
- Reduce complacency associated with long periods of power.
- Reduce corruption associated with long periods of power.
- Encourage more electorate participation in elections.
- Move away from the career politician mentality.

Regards democracy, any such change to the political system would probably need a referendum.

Anyway that's a snapshot - late in the evening!, but would be good to hear if it's right off beam, or not!

Then we just have a govenrment that rules as oppose to a government that we vote to represent us. Its a stupid idea.

doctorwu

What difference would it make?. Just the same old crowd of teachers, gombeens, its the family occupation, crowd that we have now. The only difference it would make is that they pass the parcel every two terms.

Mick Regan

I won't labour this too much but...

Hazlittle - the party that rules IS elected, just that we can't vote the same party in for 3 consecutive terms.

Doctorwu - wouldn't removing one of the incumbents from an election encourage the growth of Labour (or others) for example, and possibly the introduction of new parties? (If i was a FF voter, i wouldn't automatically switch to FG now would I!?)

I guess what i'm getting at here is that:
a. there's no revolution going to happen in Ireland.
b. there's no bright new party appearing on the horizons given the current grip on power between the big two.
c. we'll go round in circles swapping in and out 'that same old crowd'.

Seems to me we're going to have to work with what we've got, so let's have some ideas on how we can make things better. Mine's just up there to see if it, or something like it, is worth exploring.

Wolfe Tone

I have a better idea, a federal system like in america, were the president can only serve two terms?

Hazlittle

Mick Regan wrote: »

I won't labour this too much but...

Hazlittle - the party that rules IS elected, just that we can't vote the same party in for 3 consecutive terms.

Doctorwu - wouldn't removing one of the incumbents from an election encourage the growth of Labour (or others) for example, and possibly the introduction of new parties? (If i was a FF voter, i wouldn't automatically switch to FG now would I!?)

I guess what i'm getting at here is that:
a. there's no revolution going to happen in Ireland.
b. there's no bright new party appearing on the horizons given the current grip on power between the big two.
c. we'll go round in circles swapping in and out 'that same old crowd'.

Seems to me we're going to have to work with what we've got, so let's have some ideas on how we can make things better. Mine's just up there to see if it, or something like it, is worth exploring.

Man how hard is this to understand.


In your system the party that gets an overall majority doesnt take the government. Legislation will be passed that doesnt represent the people. Its anti-democratic. Politics isnt just about having random people in power.

Denerick

Term limits for heads of state who have significant political power (IE, the US Presidential system) is a good idea as Presidents easily become demagogues (ie, Hugo Chavez, a tyrant in the making)

For parliamentary democracies, this would be an absolutely rubbish idea. The people decide who encompass parliaments, and the parliaments decide who encompass governments. The people don't have a direct say who their taoiseach is, as evidenced by the fact that Prime Ministers and Taoiseachs can be deposed by their party whilst continuing to govern.