How could a lack of term limits lead to a “dictatorship?”Why do countries have term limits on Presidents and Prime Ministers?Can the current President of the United States block the transfer of their office to the next elected president?

What does it exactly mean if a random variable follows a distribution

Finding files for which a command fails

Doomsday-clock for my fantasy planet

Could Giant Ground Sloths have been a good pack animal for the ancient Mayans?

How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect

Is there a way to make member function NOT callable from constructor?

Why is the design of haulage companies so “special”?

Is this food a bread or a loaf?

Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?

Is there a familial term for apples and pears?

What does "enim et" mean?

LWC and complex parameters

How to move the player while also allowing forces to affect it

I see my dog run

How to manage monthly salary

Typesetting a double Over Dot on top of a symbol

Why airport relocation isn't done gradually?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of running one shots compared to campaigns?

"My colleague's body is amazing"

Email Account under attack (really) - anything I can do?

Can a planet have a different gravitational pull depending on its location in orbit around its sun?

How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?

What is GPS' 19 year rollover and does it present a cybersecurity issue?

When blogging recipes, how can I support both readers who want the narrative/journey and ones who want the printer-friendly recipe?



How could a lack of term limits lead to a “dictatorship?”


Why do countries have term limits on Presidents and Prime Ministers?Can the current President of the United States block the transfer of their office to the next elected president?













1















I read this question on why countries impose term limits on leaders, but it seems that the answer is not what I wanted.



The reason is basically "to prevent a dictatorship." The only issue is, the public would still be voting every so often on the new president, so he/she could only abuse their power for the same amount of time an ordinary one could. Also, if a leader were to be an exceptionally good president/prime minister, it doesn't make much sense to keep them from being reelected.



I am aware that there was a custom in the US far before an actual constitutional reason keeping presidents from running for president more than twice, but this seems odd, too. There's not much of a reason for it.



One reason one could think of is to let new people be elected, if one person has been consistently reelected for the past few terms. But if they have, they are probably good enough at their job to deserve it.



I know there are several similar questions (like the one linked above), but I do not believe this to be a duplicate. It is instead expanding on a certain point made in it, which seems unaddressed in responses to comments and seems worthy of a separate question.










share|improve this question







New contributor




Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
























    1















    I read this question on why countries impose term limits on leaders, but it seems that the answer is not what I wanted.



    The reason is basically "to prevent a dictatorship." The only issue is, the public would still be voting every so often on the new president, so he/she could only abuse their power for the same amount of time an ordinary one could. Also, if a leader were to be an exceptionally good president/prime minister, it doesn't make much sense to keep them from being reelected.



    I am aware that there was a custom in the US far before an actual constitutional reason keeping presidents from running for president more than twice, but this seems odd, too. There's not much of a reason for it.



    One reason one could think of is to let new people be elected, if one person has been consistently reelected for the past few terms. But if they have, they are probably good enough at their job to deserve it.



    I know there are several similar questions (like the one linked above), but I do not believe this to be a duplicate. It is instead expanding on a certain point made in it, which seems unaddressed in responses to comments and seems worthy of a separate question.










    share|improve this question







    New contributor




    Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















      1












      1








      1








      I read this question on why countries impose term limits on leaders, but it seems that the answer is not what I wanted.



      The reason is basically "to prevent a dictatorship." The only issue is, the public would still be voting every so often on the new president, so he/she could only abuse their power for the same amount of time an ordinary one could. Also, if a leader were to be an exceptionally good president/prime minister, it doesn't make much sense to keep them from being reelected.



      I am aware that there was a custom in the US far before an actual constitutional reason keeping presidents from running for president more than twice, but this seems odd, too. There's not much of a reason for it.



      One reason one could think of is to let new people be elected, if one person has been consistently reelected for the past few terms. But if they have, they are probably good enough at their job to deserve it.



      I know there are several similar questions (like the one linked above), but I do not believe this to be a duplicate. It is instead expanding on a certain point made in it, which seems unaddressed in responses to comments and seems worthy of a separate question.










      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      I read this question on why countries impose term limits on leaders, but it seems that the answer is not what I wanted.



      The reason is basically "to prevent a dictatorship." The only issue is, the public would still be voting every so often on the new president, so he/she could only abuse their power for the same amount of time an ordinary one could. Also, if a leader were to be an exceptionally good president/prime minister, it doesn't make much sense to keep them from being reelected.



      I am aware that there was a custom in the US far before an actual constitutional reason keeping presidents from running for president more than twice, but this seems odd, too. There's not much of a reason for it.



      One reason one could think of is to let new people be elected, if one person has been consistently reelected for the past few terms. But if they have, they are probably good enough at their job to deserve it.



      I know there are several similar questions (like the one linked above), but I do not believe this to be a duplicate. It is instead expanding on a certain point made in it, which seems unaddressed in responses to comments and seems worthy of a separate question.







      presidential-term






      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question






      New contributor




      Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 4 hours ago









      Redwolf ProgramsRedwolf Programs

      24725




      24725




      New contributor




      Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4














          As an empirical fact, the very same person is much more likely to win an election if that person in an incumbent than if that person is not and there is an open race, or a candidate is challenging an incumbent.



          This is because, among other things, an incumbent has better name recognition, challenges to an incumbent from a member of the same political party are strongly disfavored (even though that party is likely to be the one preferred by most voters in that politician's district), an incumbent doesn't need to spend time engaged in non-political work for economic self-support, and an incumbent can't manipulate the levers of government to make the incumbent appear desirable in superficial ways that don't reflect the bigger issues that really matter in governing a political unit.



          Term limits periodically wipe out incumbency advantages so that the vote of the people reflects an unbiased view of their wishes prospectively rather than being influenced by the mere fact that someone has previously held the same post.



          This keeps elected officials in line with the wishes of the people, and also prevents incumbency advantages (like gerrymandered districts that put strong opponents in the same district while leaving incumbents in districts that lack strong challengers) from further accumulating over time, which may create an environment akin to a dominant party system, where there is a legal opposition but it has no realistic prospects of winning important political prizes in the near term.



          If an elected official is very hard to remove despite the formal electoral process due to incumbency advantages, at some point the elected official can effectively ignore the public and rule as he or she sees fit at whim, must like a dictator. This isn't an absolute freedom and an extreme act could get an opposition figure elected (if those in charge don't change the election laws to prevent that), but even a dictator still needs to maintain a basis of support and legitimacy to rule.



          There are many examples in newer democracies of Presidents or other leaders improperly manipulating, greatly postponing or even entirely dispensing with elections creating a one party state or a publicly acknowledge dictatorship. The threat is not hypothetical.



          Regular shifts in who holds political office through an electoral process (which may include term limits) is necessary, as an empirical matter, for a democratic electoral system to be healthy and functional.



          As one empirical example, jurisdictions with term limits tend to have more women, and generally more diverse groups of elected officials and the lagging indicator influences of incumbency are overcome.






          share|improve this answer
































            2














            Perhaps rather than "dictator", it should be prevention of "monarchy".



            There is an incumbent effect. An incumbent President can act to improve their popularity with the voters. Challengers can only talk to critisise, but since challengers are not in the Presidency they can't do anything. This gives the incumbent an advantage.



            We see in some countries where a President can remain for longer (and especially those in which the President acts more directly to weaken the opposition) a situation developing in which there are no credible challengers. The President in this situation may not be a dictator, but is re-elected by a landslide every 4 years, because there is nobody else who can oppose him.



            The fear of the founding fathers was that a President would use his position to remain in power for the rest of his life, and then use his influence to see that his son became the next president (creating a de-facto monarchy)



            The drafters of the amendment to the constituion felt that FDR had gained too much power, over his 3½ terms, he had been able to pick nearly all the members of the supreme court and massively increased federal budgets in the "new deal". They didn't want another President to stay in power for that long.






            share|improve this answer























              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "475"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader:
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              ,
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );






              Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40377%2fhow-could-a-lack-of-term-limits-lead-to-a-dictatorship%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              4














              As an empirical fact, the very same person is much more likely to win an election if that person in an incumbent than if that person is not and there is an open race, or a candidate is challenging an incumbent.



              This is because, among other things, an incumbent has better name recognition, challenges to an incumbent from a member of the same political party are strongly disfavored (even though that party is likely to be the one preferred by most voters in that politician's district), an incumbent doesn't need to spend time engaged in non-political work for economic self-support, and an incumbent can't manipulate the levers of government to make the incumbent appear desirable in superficial ways that don't reflect the bigger issues that really matter in governing a political unit.



              Term limits periodically wipe out incumbency advantages so that the vote of the people reflects an unbiased view of their wishes prospectively rather than being influenced by the mere fact that someone has previously held the same post.



              This keeps elected officials in line with the wishes of the people, and also prevents incumbency advantages (like gerrymandered districts that put strong opponents in the same district while leaving incumbents in districts that lack strong challengers) from further accumulating over time, which may create an environment akin to a dominant party system, where there is a legal opposition but it has no realistic prospects of winning important political prizes in the near term.



              If an elected official is very hard to remove despite the formal electoral process due to incumbency advantages, at some point the elected official can effectively ignore the public and rule as he or she sees fit at whim, must like a dictator. This isn't an absolute freedom and an extreme act could get an opposition figure elected (if those in charge don't change the election laws to prevent that), but even a dictator still needs to maintain a basis of support and legitimacy to rule.



              There are many examples in newer democracies of Presidents or other leaders improperly manipulating, greatly postponing or even entirely dispensing with elections creating a one party state or a publicly acknowledge dictatorship. The threat is not hypothetical.



              Regular shifts in who holds political office through an electoral process (which may include term limits) is necessary, as an empirical matter, for a democratic electoral system to be healthy and functional.



              As one empirical example, jurisdictions with term limits tend to have more women, and generally more diverse groups of elected officials and the lagging indicator influences of incumbency are overcome.






              share|improve this answer





























                4














                As an empirical fact, the very same person is much more likely to win an election if that person in an incumbent than if that person is not and there is an open race, or a candidate is challenging an incumbent.



                This is because, among other things, an incumbent has better name recognition, challenges to an incumbent from a member of the same political party are strongly disfavored (even though that party is likely to be the one preferred by most voters in that politician's district), an incumbent doesn't need to spend time engaged in non-political work for economic self-support, and an incumbent can't manipulate the levers of government to make the incumbent appear desirable in superficial ways that don't reflect the bigger issues that really matter in governing a political unit.



                Term limits periodically wipe out incumbency advantages so that the vote of the people reflects an unbiased view of their wishes prospectively rather than being influenced by the mere fact that someone has previously held the same post.



                This keeps elected officials in line with the wishes of the people, and also prevents incumbency advantages (like gerrymandered districts that put strong opponents in the same district while leaving incumbents in districts that lack strong challengers) from further accumulating over time, which may create an environment akin to a dominant party system, where there is a legal opposition but it has no realistic prospects of winning important political prizes in the near term.



                If an elected official is very hard to remove despite the formal electoral process due to incumbency advantages, at some point the elected official can effectively ignore the public and rule as he or she sees fit at whim, must like a dictator. This isn't an absolute freedom and an extreme act could get an opposition figure elected (if those in charge don't change the election laws to prevent that), but even a dictator still needs to maintain a basis of support and legitimacy to rule.



                There are many examples in newer democracies of Presidents or other leaders improperly manipulating, greatly postponing or even entirely dispensing with elections creating a one party state or a publicly acknowledge dictatorship. The threat is not hypothetical.



                Regular shifts in who holds political office through an electoral process (which may include term limits) is necessary, as an empirical matter, for a democratic electoral system to be healthy and functional.



                As one empirical example, jurisdictions with term limits tend to have more women, and generally more diverse groups of elected officials and the lagging indicator influences of incumbency are overcome.






                share|improve this answer



























                  4












                  4








                  4







                  As an empirical fact, the very same person is much more likely to win an election if that person in an incumbent than if that person is not and there is an open race, or a candidate is challenging an incumbent.



                  This is because, among other things, an incumbent has better name recognition, challenges to an incumbent from a member of the same political party are strongly disfavored (even though that party is likely to be the one preferred by most voters in that politician's district), an incumbent doesn't need to spend time engaged in non-political work for economic self-support, and an incumbent can't manipulate the levers of government to make the incumbent appear desirable in superficial ways that don't reflect the bigger issues that really matter in governing a political unit.



                  Term limits periodically wipe out incumbency advantages so that the vote of the people reflects an unbiased view of their wishes prospectively rather than being influenced by the mere fact that someone has previously held the same post.



                  This keeps elected officials in line with the wishes of the people, and also prevents incumbency advantages (like gerrymandered districts that put strong opponents in the same district while leaving incumbents in districts that lack strong challengers) from further accumulating over time, which may create an environment akin to a dominant party system, where there is a legal opposition but it has no realistic prospects of winning important political prizes in the near term.



                  If an elected official is very hard to remove despite the formal electoral process due to incumbency advantages, at some point the elected official can effectively ignore the public and rule as he or she sees fit at whim, must like a dictator. This isn't an absolute freedom and an extreme act could get an opposition figure elected (if those in charge don't change the election laws to prevent that), but even a dictator still needs to maintain a basis of support and legitimacy to rule.



                  There are many examples in newer democracies of Presidents or other leaders improperly manipulating, greatly postponing or even entirely dispensing with elections creating a one party state or a publicly acknowledge dictatorship. The threat is not hypothetical.



                  Regular shifts in who holds political office through an electoral process (which may include term limits) is necessary, as an empirical matter, for a democratic electoral system to be healthy and functional.



                  As one empirical example, jurisdictions with term limits tend to have more women, and generally more diverse groups of elected officials and the lagging indicator influences of incumbency are overcome.






                  share|improve this answer















                  As an empirical fact, the very same person is much more likely to win an election if that person in an incumbent than if that person is not and there is an open race, or a candidate is challenging an incumbent.



                  This is because, among other things, an incumbent has better name recognition, challenges to an incumbent from a member of the same political party are strongly disfavored (even though that party is likely to be the one preferred by most voters in that politician's district), an incumbent doesn't need to spend time engaged in non-political work for economic self-support, and an incumbent can't manipulate the levers of government to make the incumbent appear desirable in superficial ways that don't reflect the bigger issues that really matter in governing a political unit.



                  Term limits periodically wipe out incumbency advantages so that the vote of the people reflects an unbiased view of their wishes prospectively rather than being influenced by the mere fact that someone has previously held the same post.



                  This keeps elected officials in line with the wishes of the people, and also prevents incumbency advantages (like gerrymandered districts that put strong opponents in the same district while leaving incumbents in districts that lack strong challengers) from further accumulating over time, which may create an environment akin to a dominant party system, where there is a legal opposition but it has no realistic prospects of winning important political prizes in the near term.



                  If an elected official is very hard to remove despite the formal electoral process due to incumbency advantages, at some point the elected official can effectively ignore the public and rule as he or she sees fit at whim, must like a dictator. This isn't an absolute freedom and an extreme act could get an opposition figure elected (if those in charge don't change the election laws to prevent that), but even a dictator still needs to maintain a basis of support and legitimacy to rule.



                  There are many examples in newer democracies of Presidents or other leaders improperly manipulating, greatly postponing or even entirely dispensing with elections creating a one party state or a publicly acknowledge dictatorship. The threat is not hypothetical.



                  Regular shifts in who holds political office through an electoral process (which may include term limits) is necessary, as an empirical matter, for a democratic electoral system to be healthy and functional.



                  As one empirical example, jurisdictions with term limits tend to have more women, and generally more diverse groups of elected officials and the lagging indicator influences of incumbency are overcome.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 3 hours ago

























                  answered 4 hours ago









                  ohwillekeohwilleke

                  22.5k35495




                  22.5k35495





















                      2














                      Perhaps rather than "dictator", it should be prevention of "monarchy".



                      There is an incumbent effect. An incumbent President can act to improve their popularity with the voters. Challengers can only talk to critisise, but since challengers are not in the Presidency they can't do anything. This gives the incumbent an advantage.



                      We see in some countries where a President can remain for longer (and especially those in which the President acts more directly to weaken the opposition) a situation developing in which there are no credible challengers. The President in this situation may not be a dictator, but is re-elected by a landslide every 4 years, because there is nobody else who can oppose him.



                      The fear of the founding fathers was that a President would use his position to remain in power for the rest of his life, and then use his influence to see that his son became the next president (creating a de-facto monarchy)



                      The drafters of the amendment to the constituion felt that FDR had gained too much power, over his 3½ terms, he had been able to pick nearly all the members of the supreme court and massively increased federal budgets in the "new deal". They didn't want another President to stay in power for that long.






                      share|improve this answer



























                        2














                        Perhaps rather than "dictator", it should be prevention of "monarchy".



                        There is an incumbent effect. An incumbent President can act to improve their popularity with the voters. Challengers can only talk to critisise, but since challengers are not in the Presidency they can't do anything. This gives the incumbent an advantage.



                        We see in some countries where a President can remain for longer (and especially those in which the President acts more directly to weaken the opposition) a situation developing in which there are no credible challengers. The President in this situation may not be a dictator, but is re-elected by a landslide every 4 years, because there is nobody else who can oppose him.



                        The fear of the founding fathers was that a President would use his position to remain in power for the rest of his life, and then use his influence to see that his son became the next president (creating a de-facto monarchy)



                        The drafters of the amendment to the constituion felt that FDR had gained too much power, over his 3½ terms, he had been able to pick nearly all the members of the supreme court and massively increased federal budgets in the "new deal". They didn't want another President to stay in power for that long.






                        share|improve this answer

























                          2












                          2








                          2







                          Perhaps rather than "dictator", it should be prevention of "monarchy".



                          There is an incumbent effect. An incumbent President can act to improve their popularity with the voters. Challengers can only talk to critisise, but since challengers are not in the Presidency they can't do anything. This gives the incumbent an advantage.



                          We see in some countries where a President can remain for longer (and especially those in which the President acts more directly to weaken the opposition) a situation developing in which there are no credible challengers. The President in this situation may not be a dictator, but is re-elected by a landslide every 4 years, because there is nobody else who can oppose him.



                          The fear of the founding fathers was that a President would use his position to remain in power for the rest of his life, and then use his influence to see that his son became the next president (creating a de-facto monarchy)



                          The drafters of the amendment to the constituion felt that FDR had gained too much power, over his 3½ terms, he had been able to pick nearly all the members of the supreme court and massively increased federal budgets in the "new deal". They didn't want another President to stay in power for that long.






                          share|improve this answer













                          Perhaps rather than "dictator", it should be prevention of "monarchy".



                          There is an incumbent effect. An incumbent President can act to improve their popularity with the voters. Challengers can only talk to critisise, but since challengers are not in the Presidency they can't do anything. This gives the incumbent an advantage.



                          We see in some countries where a President can remain for longer (and especially those in which the President acts more directly to weaken the opposition) a situation developing in which there are no credible challengers. The President in this situation may not be a dictator, but is re-elected by a landslide every 4 years, because there is nobody else who can oppose him.



                          The fear of the founding fathers was that a President would use his position to remain in power for the rest of his life, and then use his influence to see that his son became the next president (creating a de-facto monarchy)



                          The drafters of the amendment to the constituion felt that FDR had gained too much power, over his 3½ terms, he had been able to pick nearly all the members of the supreme court and massively increased federal budgets in the "new deal". They didn't want another President to stay in power for that long.







                          share|improve this answer












                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer










                          answered 4 hours ago









                          James KJames K

                          36.4k8107155




                          36.4k8107155




















                              Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                              draft saved

                              draft discarded


















                              Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                              Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                              Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid


                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40377%2fhow-could-a-lack-of-term-limits-lead-to-a-dictatorship%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              名間水力發電廠 目录 沿革 設施 鄰近設施 註釋 外部連結 导航菜单23°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.7113923°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.71139計畫概要原始内容臺灣第一座BOT 模式開發的水力發電廠-名間水力電廠名間水力發電廠 水利署首件BOT案原始内容《小檔案》名間電廠 首座BOT水力發電廠原始内容名間電廠BOT - 經濟部水利署中區水資源局

                              Prove that NP is closed under karp reduction?Space(n) not closed under Karp reductions - what about NTime(n)?Class P is closed under rotation?Prove or disprove that $NL$ is closed under polynomial many-one reductions$mathbfNC_2$ is closed under log-space reductionOn Karp reductionwhen can I know if a class (complexity) is closed under reduction (cook/karp)Check if class $PSPACE$ is closed under polyonomially space reductionIs NPSPACE also closed under polynomial-time reduction and under log-space reduction?Prove PSPACE is closed under complement?Prove PSPACE is closed under union?

                              Is my guitar’s action too high? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Strings too stiff on a recently purchased acoustic guitar | Cort AD880CEIs the action of my guitar really high?Μy little finger is too weak to play guitarWith guitar, how long should I give my fingers to strengthen / callous?When playing a fret the guitar sounds mutedPlaying (Barre) chords up the guitar neckI think my guitar strings are wound too tight and I can't play barre chordsF barre chord on an SG guitarHow to find to the right strings of a barre chord by feel?High action on higher fret on my steel acoustic guitar