Term limits

[ashbury]

 

It completely eliminates the one person, one vote concept. ... It is anti democracy imo.

Guess I'm more of a republican (small r) than a democrat (small d) come to think of it.

 

For local elections I'm fine with direct election of (say) council members or congressional delagates, but for example I prefer that the elected council choose who presides. For more important offices I am fine with there being a small buffer of some sort.

 

For that matter, I'm not sure I understand the motivation to reduce the number in the house of representatives. If anything, the number should be massively higher, so that individual districts are more like the original intent of direct representation, than practically the size a state was 200 years ago. I realize there would be logistical issues (the Capitol building has no such room), and it would bother some people that the process was now more unruly, but it would be more democratic. US population in 1800 was 5.3 million and there were 106 Representatives, so each district was about 50K. If I'm doing the math right we need 6000 Representatives to keep the same spirit alive today. I think I'd like that - it would give Boehner some more to think about, if nothing else. The Senate should be small and deliberative, the House should reflect the momentary whim will of the people.

[Mike Sixel]

Logistically, it would be a nightmare to have a House much larger. Entertainment wise, it would be awesome to have 2500 members.......

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

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.

 

I agree we should have one election day and you should have to prove who you are to vote in all 50 states.

[Craig Arko]

Recognizing the difference between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy, I'm ok with that part. I still think an upper limit of ten years is sufficient for anyone to hold office.

 

Now if they can do something about the PAC's...

[biggentleben]

 

I agree we should have one election day and you should have to prove who you are to vote in all 50 states.

 

...and how do you propose to "prove" such things? Most solutions include IDs, but that would be exclusive to many who cannot afford the relatively high costs of an ID card. Birth certificate or social security card also presents another logistical issue that can be both racially and financially exclusive. I would not have an issue with this, if I didn't see it as such an obvious play to exclude certain voting groups that tend to vote for one party.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

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.  

 

I'm not sure what we have today can be considered 'effective politicians' if by that you mean, sold out to special interests, than sure.  There's a reason congress has an approval rating of less than 20%.  It needs to go back to what it was, a service concept where someone would take a few years off to run for office, not a career.  Cut the salary and reduce the terms, and that will go a long way towards fixing things.  We desperately need politicians who have non-politicial careers.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't think you can cut the salary and reduce the terms.  I think you probably have to raise salaries (at the state and federal level), lengthen each individual term, but limit total terms.  

 

I agree that the service model should be the ideal, but you still need to incentivize it properly in this day and age.  I don't, however, understand most of the arguments against term limits listed in this thread so far.  Almost all of them fall directly into the trap that years of legislation have built up: It appears as though it's a bad thing to impose term limits precisely because career politicians have stacked the deck in their favor.  Take lobbying as just one small example: what politician (from either party) in their right mind is going to do anything about restructuring campaign finance (in a real and meaningful way) when the current system lines their pockets and fuels their campaigns?  

 

So much of what is wrong in Washington is because of entrenched ideas, beliefs, and processes that are designed to give the appearance that this is the only way it could be.  There needs to be far less incentive to pass laws that make it good to be a long-term member of Congress and much more incentive to be an effective member for the short term.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

I agree we should have one election day and you should have to prove who you are to vote in all 50 states.

 

voter fraud, the UFO of elections......it just isn't real enough to suffer the consequences of disenfranchising so many voters. Everyone should be registered the moment they turn 18, everyone should have the right to vote.

[biggentleben]

 

voter fraud, the UFO of elections......it just isn't real enough to suffer the consequences of disenfranchising so many voters. Everyone should be registered the moment they turn 18, everyone should have the right to vote.

 

I'll admit to having read this and not recalling where I saw it, but the states that had "voter fraud" initiatives enacted for the 2014 election experienced less than 1% voter fraud at the polls, but they also experienced the lowest percentage of minority vote and vote from those with a household income below the poverty line in their history since the Voting Rights Act was passed 50 years prior.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'll admit to having read this and not recalling where I saw it, but the states that had "voter fraud" initiatives enacted for the 2014 election experienced less than 1% voter fraud at the polls, but they also experienced the lowest percentage of minority vote and vote from those with a household income below the poverty line in their history since the Voting Rights Act was passed 50 years prior.

 

that's the real goal, getting less people to vote. And yet, they want to send people over seas to "die for democracy". What a sad, sad lot.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm not sure what we have today can be considered 'effective politicians' if by that you mean, sold out to special interests, than sure.  There's a reason congress has an approval rating of less than 20%.  It needs to go back to what it was, a service concept where someone would take a few years off to run for office, not a career.  Cut the salary and reduce the terms, and that will go a long way towards fixing things.  We desperately need politicians who have non-politicial careers.

Obviously our current politicians are heavily invested in special interest to the detriment of society.   But politicians would even be more beholden to the special interests of their non-political career.  Very few individuals can afford to give up some of their best earning years to 'serve' in political office.  We'd get a less diverse population running for political office.  

[stringer bell]

I want as many people as possible voting to determine who represents us. It seems to me that the Photo ID people are hellbent to limit voters, first and foremost, and make it difficult for as many of the people who don't look to be their constituency. Combine that with the meme that government is broken, and won't work and it is a stew for low participation, which I assume is exactly what one party wants.

[glunn]

 

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 have been saying this for years.  Having 435 members made sense when there were no radios, televisions, internet, railroads, airplanes, or highways.  Congressmen had to travel by horseback or carriage and had to communicate by letters and meeting.  Today, a Congressperson can much more easily communicate with constituents.

 

I would like to see the House of Representatives cut to 200 members and give them 4 year terms.

[glunn]

 

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 once ran for the local school board as a protest candidate.  To everyone's surprise, especially my own, I won.  This committed me to 4 years of dealing with some spiteful, petty people who were not very intelligent, but I had ideas that saved the district more than $50 million so at least some good came of this debacle.  

 

I think that there are many people out there who could do much better than I did, but as ash has stated they are unwilling to wade through the utter filth of modern politics.  Over the years, I have begged some of these people to run for the school board and they all refused because they don't want to play the game.  So we are left with what we see, which is career politicians who will do whatever they think will keep them in power.

 

I have sometimes thought about running for Congress.  The part that I liked best about campaigning was the televised debates.  A televised debate can be a great equalizer -- I ran against two incumbents who each outspent me by a factor of at least three, and beat them both.  I think that absent the debates, I would not have won.  But a Congressional campaign could cost $1 million or more on a shoestring basis and for many/most candidates that means selling your soul to big donors. Also, if you win, then you would have to spend most of your time in DC trying to reason with people who are mostly puppets of their key donors.

 

My solution -- more televised debates at every level, so that newcomers get more of a chance to become known without selling their souls to big donors and so that career politicians have to defend their records more often and more meaningfully.  Also, we need to find some way to better engage voters and educate them as to the difference between wheat and chaff.

 

A repeal of Citizens United would also be helpful.

[ashbury]

I would like to see the House of Representatives cut to 200 members and give them 4 year terms.

That would in spirit be just another Senate. Nearly state-sized districts in many cases, huge ones in any case. What would be the purpose of having a second Senate?

[stringer bell]

Gerrymandering is a far worse problem than yes or no on term limits. Less than 100 seats are at risk at all in the 2016 election. It gives sitting Congressmen no reason to deviate from a path that is not helping our country, if not destroying it. In a safe red district the Steve Kings of the world win a lot, in safe blue districts the Keith Ellisons. They may be on the edge of their party, but they can't be beaten so why try to moderate.

 

The oft-used example of  2012, where Democrats got more votes for Congress than Republicans, but barely put a dent in the Republican majority is pretty good proof that there is a problem with the chamber that is supposed to express the will of the people every two years. I believe that representation in states Obama carried, but were redistricted by Republican legislatures made that difference. North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, and Michigan were all in that situation.

[Hrbowski]

 

Gerrymandering is a far worse problem than yes or no on term limits. Less than 100 seats are at risk at all in the 2016 election. It gives sitting Congressmen no reason to deviate from a path that is not helping our country, if not destroying it. In a safe red district the Steve Kings of the world win a lot, in safe blue districts the Keith Ellisons. They may be on the edge of their party, but they can't be beaten so why try to moderate.

 

The oft-used example of  2012, where Democrats got more votes for Congress than Republicans, but barely put a dent in the Republican majority is pretty good proof that there is a problem with the chamber that is supposed to express the will of the people every two years. I believe that representation in states Obama carried, but were redistricted by Republican legislatures made that difference. North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, and Michigan were all in that situation.

In 2012 the Republicans did have control of the House, but not the Senate, so although they may have had more members in Congress, it does not mean that they actually had control of congress, which they do have now.

[Hrbowski]

 

I want as many people as possible voting to determine who represents us. It seems to me that the Photo ID people are hellbent to limit voters, first and foremost, and make it difficult for as many of the people who don't look to be their constituency. Combine that with the meme that government is broken, and won't work and it is a stew for low participation, which I assume is exactly what one party wants.

I think that both parties want to disengage the people from the government.

[DaveW]

 

I think that both parties want to disengage the people from the government.

Not when it comes to the voter ID and limiting voters piece. Those programs are primarily set up in states to discourage/make it tougher for poor and/or minorities to vote, both of which vote heavy democratic.

 

I also think it's a little stupid that convicted felons can't vote either. As long as you aren't in jail at the time, you should get a vote. (Again, because of the system convicted felons are much more likely to be democratic voters because of low income and/or being a minority.)

[ashbury]

I also think it's a little stupid that convicted felons can't vote

... or get a lot of jobs which have nothing to do with the crime that was committed, or get a decent break on much of anything, even after the "debt to society" has been supposedly paid.

[Craig Arko]

Not to be confused with the unconvicted felons we were talking about having term limits for.

[mikecgrimes]

 

voter fraud, the UFO of elections......it just isn't real enough to suffer the consequences of disenfranchising so many voters. Everyone should be registered the moment they turn 18, everyone should have the right to vote.

 

Even if it only amounts to 73 votes it's important to eliminate voter fraud when possible.  I get why certain people think voter fraud is fine but it defeats the purpose of having elections to go out of your way to allow it.

[mikecgrimes]

 

I want as many people as possible voting to determine who represents us. It seems to me that the Photo ID people are hellbent to limit voters, first and foremost, and make it difficult for as many of the people who don't look to be their constituency. Combine that with the meme that government is broken, and won't work and it is a stew for low participation, which I assume is exactly what one party wants.

 

I want everyone to get a free ID with ease.

[biggentleben]

 

I want everyone to get a free ID with ease.

 

You sure? How long until it turns into the rhetoric about how your tax money is paying for the ID for someone just using it to go buy beer, akin to the EBT argument that food benefits just encourage people to spend money on cigarettes and alcohol, nevermind that EBT cannot be used on either, so it's a very loose correlation at best and certainly not a causation.

[Hrbowski]

 

Not when it comes to the voter ID and limiting voters piece. Those programs are primarily set up in states to discourage/make it tougher for poor and/or minorities to vote, both of which vote heavy democratic.

 

I also think it's a little stupid that convicted felons can't vote either. As long as you aren't in jail at the time, you should get a vote. (Again, because of the system convicted felons are much more likely to be democratic voters because of low income and/or being a minority.)

But the Democrats do want to disengage people from the government, because they want to make government bigger, supposedly to make it better, but their programs aren't improving the country, because the bigger the government gets the more areas in it to corrupt, and that is just what is going on  with the whole federal government, so in reality their programs might provide a small amount of help, it won't help in the long run because Washington is full of crooks from both parties.

 

And by the way, I don't think your explanation about convicted felons voting democratic are good, why would somebody vote for one party just because they are a minority? I don't think Hillary Clinton is any more pro-minority than Jeb Bush, so if they each got their respective party nominations and someone who was a convicted felon (if they were allowed to vote) from a minority group voted for Hillary just because they were from a minority group, that would be incomplete reasoning, but anybody who committed a felony obviously had incomplete reasoning.

[biggentleben]

 

But the Democrats do want to disengage people from the government, because they want to make government bigger, supposedly to make it better, but their programs aren't improving the country, because the bigger the government gets the more areas in it to corrupt, and that is just what is going on  with the whole federal government, so in reality their programs might provide a small amount of help, it won't help in the long run because Washington is full of crooks from both parties.

 

And by the way, I don't think your explanation about convicted felons voting democratic are good, why would somebody vote for one party just because they are a minority? I don't think Hillary Clinton is any more pro-minority than Jeb Bush, so if they each got their respective party nominations and someone who was a convicted felon (if they were allowed to vote) from a minority group voted for Hillary just because they were from a minority group, that would be incomplete reasoning, but anybody who committed a felony obviously had incomplete reasoning.

 

It really has little to do with felon/non-felon. It has to do with the majority of felons being minorities. The majority of minorities vote Democrat. Therefore, the majority of felons would vote Democrat. Sure, you could argue each individual candidate, but historical voting patters show that minorities vote for Democrats, so any voting restriction that restricts minorities is, in fact, lessening a Democratic voting base, and if you don't think the Republican brain trust (oxymoron if I've said one lately) knows that when they put forth their voting restriction/redistricting proposals, you're fooling yourself.

[mikecgrimes]

 

You sure? How long until it turns into the rhetoric about how your tax money is paying for the ID for someone just using it to go buy beer, akin to the EBT argument that food benefits just encourage people to spend money on cigarettes and alcohol, nevermind that EBT cannot be used on either, so it's a very loose correlation at best and certainly not a causation.

 

If I have a problem with someone over the age of 18 or 21 buying alcohol or tobacco the last thing I'm worried about is the easy access they have to an ID.  

 

I get it I disagree on an issue so I must be racist or hate poor people.  It must really be nice to be a Democrat.

[PseudoSABR]

 

But the Democrats do want to disengage people from the government, because they want to make government bigger, supposedly to make it better, but their programs aren't improving the country, because the bigger the government gets the more areas in it to corrupt, and that is just what is going on  with the whole federal government, so in reality their programs might provide a small amount of help, it won't help in the long run because Washington is full of crooks from both parties.

What? That Democrats prefer the government regulate industry rather than industry regulate itself has nothing to do with Conservative efforts to disenfranchise voting-eligible citizens who disagree with their policies.  No one is in favor of larger bureaucracy or inefficiency.  I wish the EPA could be privatized; or the banks knew better than to invest so heavily in speculation. The efforts of conservatives to make voting more difficult is unforgivable.  

[biggentleben]

 

If I have a problem with someone over the age of 18 or 21 buying alcohol or tobacco the last thing I'm worried about is the easy access they have to an ID.  

 

I get it I disagree on an issue so I must be racist or hate poor people.  It must really be nice to be a Democrat.

 

I'm not, but thanks for assuming. I'm not sure why any attempt to further a discussion is an attack. When what the "blinders for the right" folks see a financial incentive for those who are under-privileged or disabled, it's a hand out, and lots of rhetoric follows. Even if you and I got the same ID for free, others would be pissed off because it makes it easier for illegal immigration or for the Muslims to destroy America or something else that's a typical response to any attempt at assisting those who are in need.

 

It's just pretty obvious the rhetoric on voting that comes from one side when they follow it up with the redistricting BS that happened, so do voter registration arguments come off as against Republicans? Yes, but it's 100% of the party's doing, not those who are attempting to have the debate.

[Vanimal46]

As a 25 year old with very little interest in hard-core politics, I wonder why a person my age would ever consider running for office and be a "career politician". There have been a lot of great points brought up in this thread, and I guess I'm making more of an effort to educate myself on the matter. I can tell you I voted Obama as an 18 year old in '08, because I bought into the "Change" marketing campaign. I voted for Romney in 2012 because I felt that a strong business background could help kick start the economy back to where it was.... 

 

The salaries mentioned earlier by Dave were eye-opening for Congress and the President. It's not a humble brag in your previous post, there are numerous careers out there that make more than they do.. Glunn's idea about having more televised debates for the lesser knowns out there - I can get behind it, but it's getting harder and harder these days to see the truth in those debates. The Republican debates lately I feel like are 100% for TV ratings, and they are saying outlandish things so they can be covered by every media outlet. I suppose they COULD be that crazy with their values, and if that's the case, god help us all. 

 

I don't have any solutions to offer up. As a new person in the field, I find all of this to be insane. All I'm looking for when I vote for the next president is the values I believe in, and the rest will all be white noise. However, I will still read a site like this to find political commentary over a Facebook, CNN, Fox News, (pick your poison) As a person just learning the ropes, those are way too hostile of environments to learn anything.