We have a built-in filter for this already, which are the primary and general elections. The problem is not politicians refusing to retire, but voters refusing to vote them out.
The Democrat/Republican party system is what gives incumbents such a lead over challengers. I don't think term limits are the fix, I think we need to change how campaigns are financed - because right now, the parties pick who gets money in downticket races, and incumbents have their own war chests. That leads to challengers being outspent.
I just keep thinking about how the national party rolled over for Dianne Feinstein in the 2018 senate election, even though she lost the support of the state party. No big democrats were willing to drop their support of her, and the national party wasn't going to spend money on a primary/general challenge to a seat that would stay blue.
US states are rapidly banning ranked-choice voting †, in efforts to prevent loss of their two-party systems. Campaign finance reform is definitely necessary, but so is the fundamental nature of how citizens choose representation.
This is naked anti-democratic power-mongering. The only reason to ban it outright (rather than, say, letting people try it and switch back if they find it "confusing") is because you're afraid that people might get the hang of it and think it should be used for state and national elections as well.
Voters do find it confusing. Not all of them, but enough that it matters. E.g.: In San Francisco, Chesa Boudin only won as District Attorney in the final stage of the final vote count because his supporters were more likely to know about and use RCV than moderate, conservative, and/or low-information voters.
1. How much of that is due to its inherent complexity, and how much is just due to its novelty? If they had grown up in a society where RCV was the default, how many of those people would still have been confused?
2. People misunderstand that FPTP requires tactical voting as well; are the number of people who will continue to misunderstand RCV if it were to become common higher than the number of people who currently misunderstand FPTP?
Consider that anyone who suggests you to vote third party to "end the two-party system", before the voting system has changed, fundamentally misunderstands how FPTP works as well.
It also completely blocks extremists. They are ranked first by their supporters but last by every single other voter. This effect is mostly visible in a 3+ party system though.
> Since those committee chairs are very powerful, they get lots of campaign donations which help keep them in office
Incumbency is a huge thumb on the scales. A functional system needs to have certain checks on those in power that balance the playing field, otherwise democracy is a sham.
The two party system is a problem, but term limits are meant to solve a different issue.
The Democrat/Republican party system is what gives incumbents such a lead over challengers. I don't think term limits are the fix, I think we need to change how campaigns are financed - because right now, the parties pick who gets money in downticket races, and incumbents have their own war chests. That leads to challengers being outspent.
I just keep thinking about how the national party rolled over for Dianne Feinstein in the 2018 senate election, even though she lost the support of the state party. No big democrats were willing to drop their support of her, and the national party wasn't going to spend money on a primary/general challenge to a seat that would stay blue.