-
So, right, my idea for a compromise about term limits is: instead of having a hard line at which candidates get cut off from running again, have a progressively increasing margin that you have to beat each election in order to be able to run for re-election again. @cooljeanius/1509551979621761024
-
So, that would mean: First re-election attempt: have to have won your previous election (first election) by at least a 1% margin in order to run again Second re-election attempt: have to have won your previous election by at least a 2% margin to run again 3rd re-election: 3% etc.
-
this would mean voters would still get a say in the decisions of who can run again. Popular candidates wouldn’t get cut off by the limits until they’re very old; only unpopular candidates would have to worry about it.
-
And to be clear: this is only about eligibility for re-election after the current election, not who wins each election themselves. A candidate that wins a majority of votes under this scheme would still be seated for their current term even if they failed to reach the threshold…
-
…to be eligible to run again for re-election in the next election after that. Meeting the “majority” criterion for election method reasonability is important to me, and I don’t want to violate that.
-
Having the threshold affect eligibility for the next election would give the candidate’s party time to field a new candidate for the next election, and time for that person to transfer their institutional knowledge to their replacement.
-
Anyways, it’s just an idea; I still oppose term limits overall, but if I were to be convinced to support some sort of compromise on them, the compromise would have to look at least somewhat like what I’ve outlined here.