Term Limits and NOTA1

[palmspringsbum]

I am opposed to term limits. I do not see why an able and experienced politician should be arbitrarily timed out of office. Why should the people be denied an seasoned and competent public servant? The excuse is to mitigate corruption. But it seems to me all this accomplishes is a shift in power from the individual politician to the political parties. Term limits make it virtually impossible for an incumbent to attain and keep office without the endorsement and/or nomination of the Republicans or Democrats. And in order to get this endorsement and/or nonimation they must compromise their positions and, usually, their principles. This is not how you get corruption out of public office and public service.

I have always felt the best way to mitigate corruption in public office is to have NOTA1 as a viable 'candidate' for every elective office. Candidates must beat NOTA1 to gain office. If no candidate beats NOTA1 either the office goes vacant until the next election, or another election is held with none of the candidates defeated by NOTA1 allowed on the ballot. This would break the stranglehold of the RepubliCrats on America's political process. It is probably the only thing that will. Term limits just move power from the inidividual politician to the entrenced two (one really) parties; the Republican/Democrats.

I think it's time voters had something to vote for besides the lesser of two evils and I think in order to attain public office politicians should have to convince the voting public they're better than Nothing At All (NOTA1).