Public: Voting: Issues
Single Candidacy   (+1, -4)  [vote for, against]
Stand once, stand well

Any one person may only stand for public office once in their lifetime. At the next election, or subsequent elections, they are no longer eligible to stand.
-- pocmloc, Nov 23 2014

This is called term limit (mind you, a very restrictive variant) and it is well baked, unfortunately.
-- tatterdemalion, Nov 23 2014

Quite different from term limit, I think.

I remember one guy here in my state who ran for a seat in the state legislature, and lost, in every election for almost 40 years. I think that "past results are not indicative of future performance" thing you see in financial prospectuses was ripped off from one of his campaign slogans.

It would have been nice if someone had told him, "The people have spoken. Again."
-- lurch, Nov 23 2014

Yes a term limit merely limits the number of times one may hold office.
-- pocmloc, Nov 23 2014

Your idea is a term limit that limits the number of times one may hold office to once, ever. Same concept.

Term limits are terrible ideas and should be removed where they exist. If you don't want someone to hold an office, don't vote for that person.
-- tatterdemalion, Nov 23 2014

No, it limits the number of times you can stand. If you stand, and don't get elected, that's it. One chance.

Voting and elections are not democratic, they are oligarchic. But if we must have elections, at least lets try to rein in the oligarchy.
-- pocmloc, Nov 23 2014

// If you stand, and don't get elected, that's it. One chance.

That's not clear in the post, fyi. Maybe "stand" meaning run for office is a UK thing?

Why shouldn't a person be permitted to run, and win (or lose), as many times as the electorate wants?

I've never heard a good argument for any sort of term limit, and this takes an already terrible idea to an absurd extreme.

You'd have many elections with absolute shit candidates who are running only because no one else is. The people who are any good and you might actually vote for are all waiting to run for something they really want and think they can win, since they only get one shot at it.

Be careful what you wish for.
-- tatterdemalion, Nov 23 2014

Can I be a lying-down candidate? Running sounds like too much work.
-- sninctown, Nov 23 2014

In its favour, it would tend to fragment the existing political class, by making a political career a contradiction in terms.

On the other hand, it might tend to increase the role of back-room experts (spin-doctors, lobbyists, etc.), because they would be the only ones with practical experience of how the system worked.
-- pertinax, Nov 24 2014

I'd just like to have some competent people in charge of government. The same as I'd like for my attorney to be when defending me.

Maybe instead of voting for candidates, we should treat them as they are, ie. being hired to do an advocacy job. Give them in-depth interviews.

Or maybe that's what politics is, simply an interview that just never ends.
-- RayfordSteele, Nov 24 2014

The bureaucrats just out wait anyone who tries to control them. Basically this is carte blanche for the Civil Service to do whatever they want.
-- popbottle, Nov 25 2014

A former senior bureaucrat I know says that bureaucrats could, in fact, be brought under proper control by politicians - were it not that all the politicians were so narcissistic.

Maybe, therefore, part of the solution would be, not really short careers in politics, but really inconspicuous ones. Maybe people standing for office should be made to enter a kind of purdah, where their words and deeds would be available for public scrutiny, but their faces would not be allowed on TV - ever - until they'd retired. Social media would also have to be covered by this ban. Poliburkas all round.

Well, either that, or a random ballot, as for jury service.
-- pertinax, Nov 27 2014

So all politicians wear a V mask 24/7? You should post that as a new idea.
-- pocmloc, Nov 27 2014

random, halfbakery