Being able to run and re-run for office should be performanced based.

[Ethnic Vagina Finder]

it should be based on specific criteria and at the end of each year they receive a review with a grade. if they get a grade below a set level then the can run again. this would prevent people in the house and senate from getting elected over and over and over and over again, unless they acutally earn it.

elections shouldn't be based on how much money a person can raise, how poplular they are or where they're from. it should be based on performance.

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

how do you even begin to define performance?

 

[the cac mamba]

this thread is somewhere between and :belip:

 

[Ethnic Vagina Finder]

how do you even begin to define performance?

people vote on shyt that needs to get fixed. Take immigration reform for example. If its not fixed by a certain point they they couldn't run for re-election again.

the goal is to not only avoid people staying in office for too long but it will also prevent important issues from getting pushed back. Instead of people worrying soley about getting re-elected they would be forced into actually having to do specific things in order to try and get re-elected.

 

[88m3]

wont work in a two party system


actually it wouldn't work in a democracy

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

people vote on shyt that needs to get fixed. Take immigration reform for example. If its not fixed by a certain point they they couldn't run for re-election again.

the goal is to not only avoid people staying in office for too long but it will also prevent important issues from getting pushed back. Instead of people worrying soley about getting re-elected they would be forced into actually having to do specific things in order to try and get re-elected.

again how do you define fixed. say they pass a law and half the people hate it. what do you do then? they technically "fixed" it.

say some politician passes a law making minimum wage $15. now the wal mart cashiers love it. but some small business now has to lay off a person over it. is that fixed?

 

[mbewane]

people vote on shyt that needs to get fixed. Take immigration reform for example. If its not fixed by a certain point they they couldn't run for re-election again.

the goal is to not only avoid people staying in office for too long but it will also prevent important issues from getting pushed back. Instead of people worrying soley about getting re-elected they would be forced into actually having to do specific things in order to try and get re-elected.

Too many variables...something as big and complex as immigration can't be "fixed" in the short-term...and for some people "fixed" means less immigration (or not at all), for others it means better regulation to "recruit" high-qualified migrants...it's very hard to have "hard" benchmarks when talking about human affairs breh

And anyway, elections are SUPPOSED to be results-based: if electors were rational, that's the only thing we would consider when voting. That's the very point of democracy. BUT we are NOT rationnal, politicians know it, so they know that their ACTUAL work will hardly weigh in the balance, it will be more about promises, personnality and in some cases blaming the other side for whatever he/she was not able to do.

 

[Schmoove]

Bills passed doesn't = good performance.