Political Science Help
Proposition 140 passed in 1990 in CA limited terms for governors and legislators. The public response to it was contradictory.
What are the reasons for the contradictions?
What is beneficial about the Proposition and what isn’t?
Can you think of any improvements that can be applied to it?
It is believed that persons entering elections speak on the TV about the fulfilment of their duty and the society’s boldest dreams – and do the exact opposite, fulfilling nothing but their ambition. Which is why we should all support the limits.
However, if you look at the actual outcome of the limits, you will see that not a single one has gained wnough skill to use political systems properly – they just didn’t have time for it. Instead, we have lobbyists and clericalists, and the vox populi is less heard than ever. You may or may not agree with the policies, but you have to admit that the majority of competitors are agog to bring actual changes.
If they prove lame, we only just have to make them resign.
What improvement can I think of?
Out with the Proposition 140.
Advantages: the voice of people is constantly updated, metaphorically speaking. Disadvantages: special interests can get away practically with anything, the flow of competitors brings money, and the competitors cannot actually make use of their terms.
To put ot bluntly, term limit makes sure that the governors are pushed out before they can actually make a difference, which benefits the sponsors.
Our Fegeral government is a giant swelling on the body of our country. What we need to do is to prick it and reduce it to a healthy unit that really makes a difference for its citizens instead of bribing other countries’ governments to like us.
You can’t hepl everyone, you just get wasted in the end, which is what they actually do.
Which is why we need term limits.