Does allowing consecutive terms increase partisanship?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
I was thinking that the best answer to the term limits issue would be to not allow anyone to serve consecutive terms, but that there should not be any limit on the number of non-consecutive elections of the same person.

Voters would be more educated that way and it would make it easier for society to predict what will happen while making it more difficult for the State to plan.

And I was thinking it would also be closer to non-partisan (for example, if clinton hadnt been allowed to run for re-election in '96, then gore would've run with lieberman 4 years earlier than he actually did and then lieberman who was a democrat likely would've ran against clinton in y2k in addition to running againt someone else)
 
glenn1

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
"Voters would be more educated" How do you figure this? There is no causal reason why your plan would accomplish that.
 
S

s0me0nesmind1

Lifer
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
I am for term limits - AS WELL AS family limits.

Sorry Hillary Clinton
and Bush son (and Bush Jr son)
and Ron Paul son

If you want REAL checks and balances, quit with this all-in-the-family bullshit. It's just like having kings and queens since dip-shits keep re-electing based on last names.
 
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,557
17,082
136
Anarchist420 said:
I was thinking that the best answer to the term limits issue would be to not allow anyone to serve consecutive terms, but that there should not be any limit on the number of non-consecutive elections of the same person.

Voters would be more educated that way and it would make it easier for society to predict what will happen while making it more difficult for the State to plan.

And I was thinking it would also be closer to non-partisan (for example, if clinton hadnt been allowed to run for re-election in '96, then gore would've run with lieberman 4 years earlier than he actually did and then lieberman who was a democrat likely would've ran against clinton in y2k in addition to running againt someone else)
Click to expand...

The problem I see with your plan is that it would essentially create a revolving door of politicians and the companies they would end up lobbying for or work for until they run again.

There are several issues I see with congress right now:

1) too few representatives for our population size. Less representatives means more people whose voices are not heard or represented. It also means that politicians will tend to represent the loudest voices, ie the ones who offer up the most money.

2) biased districting, which could be fixed by #1, has allowed for "safe" politicians who only need to represent their base as opposed to everyone. This wouldn't be an issue if the districts were all the same size but they aren't and they vary quite a bit.

3) too much money in politics, this also would be fixed by #1. Money in politics, especially "dark money" and the lobbying revolving door, taint the process and focuses legislation to benefit those that donate instead of compromising and letting the best ideas prevail.


In summary; we need more representatives.
 
theeedude

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
I am for term limits for SCOTUS. Maybe a 20 year term, so justices are picked for their experience and not their youth and potential longevity.
For President, I am OK with term limits too, because there is a real danger with lifetime presidents becoming too entrenched.
For Congressmen, not so much, I think experience is important. This thing where we want our Congressman to not have been a politician too long is just stupid. Do you want your doctor to not have been practicing medicine for too long too?
 
S

s0me0nesmind1

Lifer
Nov 8, 2012
20,842
4,785
146
senseamp said:
I am for term limits for SCOTUS. Maybe a 20 year term, so justices are picked for their experience and not their youth and potential longevity.
For President, I am OK with term limits too, because there is a real danger with lifetime presidents becoming too entrenched.
For Congressmen, not so much, I think experience is important. This thing where we want our Congressman to not have been a politician too long is just stupid. Do you want your doctor to not have been practicing medicine for too long too?
Click to expand...

Do people become doctors just because their dad was a doctor?

No. They have to go through the same schools and reach the same qualifications and have the same testing and the same employment requirements in order to have doctor or MD next to their name.

For a politician, once their family is in politics - it isn't hard to get their next kid into it. It's like celebrities, people are always wondering "Ohhh what is Bill Clinton doing next?! Is Hillary going to cheat on him?! She is so strong!".... and apparently those words alone mean that is qualified for election to run this nation.

People are fucking stupid. We should DEFINITELY have term limits.
 
Zorkorist

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Who is in power is only a symptom of Government run amuck.

There is very little we can do now.

-John
 
Zorkorist

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
If there is any fight left, it should be directed at limiting Government.

-John
 
Matt1970

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
I am against all term limits. It goes against what a democracy or representative republic is. You can have who you want to represent you buy only for a while?
 
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,557
17,082
136
Term limits are understandable when corruption is present but placing stricter term limits on politicians doesn't remove the corruption, it only obscures it.

Deal with the corruption of the system first and everything else will fall in line.
 
Zorkorist

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
Maybe you should examine what Government, notably our Government is supposed to provide, what they are supposed to follow, via the rules of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Then if a legislator is doing things to damage that, vote them out.

But no. Today politicians pander to the lowest common denominator, and rape our future, to provide "bling" to the electorate.

Very sick.

-John
 
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,557
17,082
136
Zorkorist said:
Maybe you should examine what Government, notably our Government is supposed to provide, what they are supposed to follow, via the rules of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Then if a legislator is doing things to damage that, vote them out.

But no. Today politicians pander to the lowest common denominator, and rape our future, to provide "bling" to the electorate.

Very sick.

-John
Click to expand...

Corporations don't vote and they receive far more "bling" than the electorate, so...
 
Zorkorist

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
If someone gets voted in, they aren't fixing anything.

Term limits are not the problem.

As Ronald Reagan would say,

Government is the problem.

-John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom