WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

420

...Meanwhile, term limits just turn more elected officials more rapidly into more lobbyists.

And term limits accidentally, massively over-empower residual Hill staffers – who aren’t elected and aren’t term limited.

All of which is demonstrably worse than what we have now.

To solve the problems – we must address the actual problems. Ending term limits doesn’t do that.

In the House – that means ending gerrymandering. For the Senate – we must repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.

> ...Meanwhile, term limits just turn more elected officials more rapidly into more lobbyists. > And term limits accidentally, massively over-empower residual Hill staffers – who aren’t elected and aren’t term limited. > All of which is demonstrably worse than what we have now. > To solve the problems – we must address the actual problems. Ending term limits doesn’t do that. > In the House – that means ending gerrymandering. For the Senate – we must repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

If the Final Wave ex-goats weren't here would have given a small preview of the article before people click it?

As for the article itself, I'm worried about ending gerrymandering. Republicans don't like to try as much as they can, but one thing they're decent at is winning elections (obviously not every time). Considering demographic and cultural shifts, the Republicans still being very competitive is quite something.

Unfortunately, gerrymandering is a part of that. Is gerrymandering exclusive to Republicans? Nope. Do Republicans get more out of it? I suspect so. Whites are more likely to vote than non-whites and older people more likely than younger.

I understand the reasoning that "gerrymandering is good because it favors the party that makes mouth noises vaguely resembling my interests" is weak. However, for now Republicans are a useful weapon against leftist ideas while other plans are in infancy.