tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post7085005288681834259..comments2023-10-20T05:51:51.625-04:00Comments on The THINK 3 INSTITUTE: The Ohio Players: meet the Campaign for Primary AccountabilitySamuel Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-88724564201362736852012-03-10T15:02:09.941-05:002012-03-10T15:02:09.941-05:00Someone who gets reelected continuously does so be...Someone who gets reelected continuously does so because they are doing a good job, they are great at deceiving their constituents, are cheating at the polls or are in a district that is so partisan that the constituency would rather reelect a dishonest politician rather than give the other side a try - in which case they deserve to get screwed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-70771704852137145472012-03-09T16:24:03.200-05:002012-03-09T16:24:03.200-05:00Didn't say you made any claims about indispens...Didn't say <i>you</i> made any claims about indispensability. There's just a concern that someone who gets re-elected repeatedly might get the feeling that he's indispensable. Meanwhile, all statistics show that Santorum's defeat was exceptional, and he did get re-elected once. Can you imagine that he, with his ideology, did a good job those first six years? Or do you leave that to his constituents to decide?Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-76113493044368155042012-03-09T15:15:37.136-05:002012-03-09T15:15:37.136-05:00I did not say someone who considers themselves &qu...I did not say someone who considers themselves "indispensible". I said that an elected representative who is doing a good job should be voted back into office. An elected official who is not doing a good job (Rick Santorum, for example) gets voted out - even though they are incumbent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-71126675448504059592012-03-09T14:58:19.906-05:002012-03-09T14:58:19.906-05:00The point of rotation seems to be twofold. First, ...The point of rotation seems to be twofold. First, democracy abhors the idea of an indispensable man and rotation discourages anyone from thinking himself so. Second, on the assumption that power corrupts over time, rotation limits the opportunity for corruption. But an honest debate will allow for disagreement on both points. History may present examples of people who proved both incorruptible and indispensable.<br /><br />As for why incumbency gives an advantage to the incompetent, people assume the fact from the ease with which incumbents get re-elected. They assume that, having power, the incumbent has a power over people that makes it easier to retain office until he <i>really</i> screws up.Samuel Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-28959374582007543902012-03-09T12:51:08.146-05:002012-03-09T12:51:08.146-05:00What is the point of rotation? If the person elec...What is the point of rotation? If the person elected into office is doing a good job, why should the public take a chance on someone new coming in? But if the person elected is doing a bad job, I don't see that that gives them an advantage over someone who might do a better job.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com