Term limits

[DaveW]

It would NEVER happen anytime soon, but hypothetically, if they extended term limits to 3 terms for presidents, would Obama be re elected in a landslide? I think, yes.

[Mike Sixel]

Right now, I can't see who would beat him.

 

I was hoping this was a discussion about term limits in Congress......which are, imo, badly needed.

[Squirrel]

 

Right now, I can't see who would beat him.

 

I was hoping this was a discussion about term limits in Congress......which are, imo, badly needed.

Agree.

[drjim]

 

Right now, I can't see who would beat him.

 

I was hoping this was a discussion about term limits in Congress......which are, imo, badly needed.

 

I disagree. Unless term limits would magically cause representatives to buck the system that got them elected (and cut themselves off from a lucrative career following their elections).

 

Term limits is very low on the list of reforms needed, and really won't do much of anything to change the system of how people are elected and the incentives they have once elected. It is the long time Representatives and Senators that provide the minimal semblance of moderation we actually do see in the country. It is the newer elected officials that are the most aggressively partisan.

 

What exactly would term limits accomplish?

[TheLeviathan]

I have two big reasons for supporting term limits: 1) End the concept of career politicians and 2) open up avenues for reform.

 

I think, if we had term limits, that we'd see more willingness to compromise and look for inventive solutions because the people at the table are always bringing new experience and ideas to the table.  The same people making the decisions tends to yield the same results.

[ashbury]

I think if we had term limits we'd have an endless succession of (looking at it positively) well-meaning folks who would pass unconstitutional bills that would be overturned instantly, leading to almost the same kind of gridlock as now.

[drjim]

 

I think if we had term limits we'd have an endless succession of (looking at it positively) well-meaning folks who would pass unconstitutional bills that would be overturned instantly, leading to almost the same kind of gridlock as now.

 

I think it would be a race to the extremes for both parties. The nomination process would be that much more important and that is dominated by the smaller number of true believers.

 

Representatives are already afraid of wandering too far from the base for fear of a primary challenge, and that is already with the advantage of incumbency, it will be that much more with even more turnover.

 

Speaking of turnover, this last Congress there were 13 new Senators (out of 33 elected), and 59 new Representatives (out of 435). So 13% new Senators and 14% new Representatives. That strikes me as enough turnover to prove that term limits wouldn't make any difference.

[diehardtwinsfan]

getting rid of the concept of career politicians would be very beneficial.

[PseudoSABR]

I tend to agree with Jim and Ashbury about the unintended consequences of imposing term limits.  In fact, I think the House would be better served by longer terms in general.  Two-year terms create a perpetual campaign cycle which allows for non-effective politicians to run on public fervor.  Reducing the number of Representatives would also help weed out the crazies.  I don't know who thinks having 435 people trying to reach a consensus is a good idea.    Reducing the number and having a mathematical geographical proportionment (instead of gerrymandering), would help immensely. 

[PseudoSABR]

The 'career politician' is an easy target, and should not be preferable to the steady stream of former politician who now works for the special interest group s/he advocated for, echoing what Jim said.   I think we'd end up getting WORSE politicians if there isn't a career track for these people, they'd have to find their future within something other than public service, which would take affect before they ever run for office.  

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

getting rid of the concept of career politicians would be very beneficial.

 

 

Yes, yes, a 1,000 times yes.  I was just typing out that state legislators should still have occupations away from the Capitol. Term limits or not. 

 

Congress is a little different beast, I realize. 

[drjim]

 

The 'career politician' is an easy target, and should not be preferable to the steady stream of former politician who now works for the special interest group s/he advocated for, echoing what Jim said.   I think we'd end up getting WORSE politicians if there isn't a career track for these people, they'd have to find their future within something other than public service, which would take affect before they ever run for office.  

 

"Career politician" is not only an easy target but pretty much a meaningless one. Sounds good and tough but in practice wouldn't change anything. There is so much surrounding the actual Representatives (party, consultants, lobbyists) that the actual people themselves don't make much difference.

 

All term limits, without other reforms, would accomplish is expedite the machine of former Congress people becoming wealthy consultants/lobbyists.

[drjim]

 

I tend to agree with Jim and Ashbury about the unintended consequences of imposing term limits.  In fact, I think the House would be better served by longer terms in general.  Two-year terms create a perpetual campaign cycle which allows for non-effective politicians to run on public fervor.  Reducing the number of Representatives would also help weed out the crazies.  I don't know who thinks having 435 people trying to reach a consensus is a good idea.    Reducing the number and having a mathematical geographical proportionment (instead of gerrymandering), would help immensely. 

 

I would actually be tempted to increase the number of Representatives. If more districts combined with an open primary system it could actually increase the ideological diversity of Congress and ideally allow the creation of less rigid coalitions on various issues. Would potentially weaken the power of the party as well.

[Craig Arko]

Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond probably loved you guys.

[TheLeviathan]

I can get behind the idea of extending terms for Representatives to reduce campaigning, but part of what would be beneficial about term limits is that often there wouldn't be campaigning because they'd no longer be able to run.

 

So much of the "career politician" angle is name building and constant campaigning.  Effectively solving problems ranks somewhere below "appearances on Meet the Press".  That's the real issue, the current format makes politicians focused almost entirely on their own protection than trying to accomplish something for the country.

 

I think we'd end up getting WORSE politicians if there isn't a career track for these people, they'd have to find their future within something other than public service, which would take affect before they ever run for office.

 

 

I don't see what the problem with asking people with actual careers in the real world to help run the country.  Hell, why is that anything other than a good thing?  We have too many Scott Walkers already who have done nothing in life but tell enough people what they want to hear to get into an elected office.  I want actual people - teachers, doctors, business people, etc.

[TheLeviathan]

Also, bear in mind that issues like lobbyist power, campaign finance, and other laws relevant to operating in Congress are decided by life-long members of Congress.

 

We might see some actual push-back to the process if there aren't so many people (on both sides) entrenched in profiting off it for their entire life.

[mikecgrimes]

 

It would NEVER happen anytime soon, but hypothetically, if they extended term limits to 3 terms for presidents, would Obama be re elected in a landslide? I think, yes.

 

He would but only because he wouldn't have treated his second term like a second term, if he was running on the record he now has I think he would come up about 2% short.

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

Right now, I can't see who would beat him.

 

I was hoping this was a discussion about term limits in Congress......which are, imo, badly needed.

 

I get that it doesn't work very well but we have term limits, they're called elections.  They seem to prove that in reality people don't want term limits.

[formerly33]

 

I get that it doesn't work very well but we have term limits, they're called elections.  They seem to prove that in reality people don't want term limits.

There is a fine line between this and the issue at hand; in order to provide a separation of examples, this would be better referred to as "limited terms" whereas "term limits" would be used in reference to what is already being discussed in this thread. But like I said, there's a difference, and I'm not sure how you came up with the comparison. And as for your last comment, term limits would only happen if that was what the people wanted, so regardless of elections, we'd likely get what the people wanted.

[ashbury]

 

 I want actual people - teachers, doctors, business people, etc.

Won't get 'em. Not to any great degree, with or without term limits. Public office has too many downsides, for those actually doing things in life. I see it in our little town - civic minded people run for our equivalent of a town council, then get fed up mid-term and resign.

[Willihammer]

$174k salary for Congressmen, $400k for the friggin president. No wonder real people aren't interested in those jobs. But you would have an easier time selling water to a drowning man than steep Congressional raises to any electorate.

[Hrbowski]

 

It would NEVER happen anytime soon, but hypothetically, if they extended term limits to 3 terms for presidents, would Obama be re elected in a landslide? I think, yes.

No, there will not be a landslide election for many years, even if Obama was given a chance to run again, the country is to divided for that to happen, and the moderates don't exactly love Obama. People like to vote for change, and Obama would not bring change, although people will vote for the same candidate over and over again if they feel secure, if they are diehard for one party, or the candidate is so different that they think that it is a sure sign that they will fight for them, and Obama does not have any of those.

[TheLeviathan]

Won't get 'em. Not to any great degree, with or without term limits. Public office has too many downsides, for those actually doing things in life. I see it in our little town - civic minded people run for our equivalent of a town council, then get fed up mid-term and resign.

I'd suggest there is a point at which civic minded people get disenfranchised precisely because of the culture of career politicians.

 

People who want to make a difference won't fit in where the primary objectives are getting face time and continually re-elected.

[DaveW]

 

$174k salary for Congressmen, $400k for the friggin president. No wonder real people aren't interested in those jobs. But you would have an easier time selling water to a drowning man than steep Congressional raises to any electorate.

That is actually a fantastic point for a couple reasons:

 

 

1. It takes a long time or a lot of immediate fundraising/luck to even get to that level.

 

2. Those numbers are low enough that you are basically BEGGING corruption to happen, payoffs, kick backs etc.

 

3. This is going to sound like a humble brag but I don't mean it to be, but according to those numbers, I make more than a congressman and my household income (not married but co-habitating) is more than the president makes.  I find that a little bizarre personally, if you upped the salary, even by 35% or so, I think you could attract some better candidates and potentially get some candidates to leave a well paying job (even if you would take a hit if you are a Dr) if you could soften the blow. (i.e. a Docter making 400k would maybe consider leaving for a congress job making 250k, no?)

 

Again this is a very simplistic view to a complex problem, I think Congressmen should be paid a good chunk more, probably the PUSA as well, but as long as they don't royally screw everything up they at least have $50,000 a night speaking engagements to fall back on after they are out of office and at least one or two seven figure book deals.

 

Interesting how this thread ended up. As far as two year limits in congress, that seems ridiculous as many mentioned above, you are constantly worrying about the next election. I'd argue that even 4 years is a bit too short, especially for a president, by mid way year 3 you are all of a sudden worrying about the next election. Maybe 5 or 6 years would be the ideal amount? Won't happen, but it's fun to discuss.

[mikecgrimes]

 

That is actually a fantastic point for a couple reasons:

 

 

1. It takes a long time or a lot of immediate fundraising/luck to even get to that level.

 

2. Those numbers are low enough that you are basically BEGGING corruption to happen, payoffs, kick backs etc.

 

3. This is going to sound like a humble brag but I don't mean it to be, but according to those numbers, I make more than a congressman and my household income (not married but co-habitating) is more than the president makes.  I find that a little bizarre personally, if you upped the salary, even by 35% or so, I think you could attract some better candidates and potentially get some candidates to leave a well paying job (even if you would take a hit if you are a Dr) if you could soften the blow. (i.e. a Docter making 400k would maybe consider leaving for a congress job making 250k, no?)

 

Again this is a very simplistic view to a complex problem, I think Congressmen should be paid a good chunk more, probably the PUSA as well, but as long as they don't royally screw everything up they at least have $50,000 a night speaking engagements to fall back on after they are out of office and at least one or two seven figure book deals.

 

Interesting how this thread ended up. As far as two year limits in congress, that seems ridiculous as many mentioned above, you are constantly worrying about the next election. I'd argue that even 4 years is a bit too short, especially for a president, by mid way year 3 you are all of a sudden worrying about the next election. Maybe 5 or 6 years would be the ideal amount? Won't happen, but it's fun to discuss.

 

The 2015 federal budget according to the first thing that popped up on google is $3,800,000,000,000 or 3.8 trillion 0.1% of that is 3.8 billion 3.7 billion/535 is over $6.9 million (leaving $100 million left over for the president).  I have a feeling we would get that kind of money back in savings day one.

[Willihammer]

Heh. MN state legislators make $31,140. I interned for one of them in college. That's a hard job! (So was the legislator's). 

 

GDP of Minnesota is 255 billion. GE has a market cap of 247 billion. Governor of Minnesota makes 119k. CEO of GE makes 18.7 million.

[stringer bell]

Being a Congresscritter is a full-time job. Many come from somewhere--law, education, unions, business--but once they get to the federal level it is all that they do. I have an extreme distaste for the perennial election cycles in the House, the constant fundraising and the "compromises" made to get those funds.

 

My biggest problem is that approximately 300-350 of the US House seats are "safe". Currently, the gerrymandering is the worst I've ever seen in my memory. It locks in legislators who can and will be the edge of their political party.

[Mike Sixel]

I can get behind no term limits, I mostly thru that out there because I think it does solve some problems.....putting that aside, I would make these changes:

 

eliminate the electoral college, best person wins w/o worrying about empowering only a few up for grab states

 

make Representatives terms 4 years, and have half elected every 2 years, limit of 3 terms, reduce the number to, say, 350, with at least 2 per state.

 

eliminate the requirement that any one type of legislation must start in one house or the other (other than political appointees).

 

Require all political appointees by the president to be voted on w/in 30 days of that appointment, by law, if no vote happens, they are in

 

Make the presidential term 6 years, limit of 2 terms

 

rank choice voting (or instant run off, or whatever you want to call it) for all elections.

 

all donations to all campaigns or political organizations disclosed publicly

[ashbury]

eliminate the electoral college, best person wins w/o worrying about empowering only a few up for grab states

You enjoyed the Hanging Chads controversy, and others, in Florida in the 2000 election, I trust? Because that would have been replicated on a national scale.

 

Indeed several recent presidential elections have been close enough that a national recount likely would have happened. Closeness looks like the trend going forward, as well. I kind of appreciate the EC as a partial buffer for this nonsense.

[Mike Sixel]

 

You enjoyed the Hanging Chads controversy, and others, in Florida in the 2000 election, I trust? Because that would have been replicated on a national scale.

 

Indeed several recent presidential elections have been close enough that a national recount likely would have happened. Closeness looks like the trend going forward, as well. I kind of appreciate the EC as a partial buffer for this nonsense.

 

It completely eliminates the one person, one vote concept. Every vote should be cast for the person running, not for some electoral person. If 100% of the people in MN love a candidate, why is that worth less than 51% of people in another state liking the other candidate. It is anti democracy imo.

 

Also, there should be national standards enforced on the states for national elections, election law and process should be consistent for national elections. You want to discriminate for local elections, your choice. But not national elections.