this post was submitted on 13 May 2026
900 points (99.2% liked)

Not The Onion

21484 readers
2472 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Term limits are at best a neutral impact, a rotating cast isn't any more likely to be competent or less likely to be corrupt. If an official is bad at their job then vote them out, if they aren't then forcing them out just for the sake of change is directly counterproductive. It's really just that simple.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

No, the problem with keeping people in office, is that they get to establish strong networks of interests. By disrupting this and adding social uncertainty from unfamiliar people, we make it harder for corruption to become baked into society. Corruption is very much a social behavior that relies upon trust - the trust that the other guy won't snitch on you, if the horsetrading is profitable.

We make it harder to establish that trust among thieves, by swapping people often.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago

Term limits do nothing to prevent that, observable reality proves it