How about a 6 year term limit for our dear politicians?

[mephiston5]

Hardly a new idea, but it seems too many politicians care more about getting re-elected than actually serving the majority of Americans. Hence the power of lobbying groups and those able to make large campaign donations.

6 years seems reasonable in terms of being able to get things done. Elections could be staggered to add a good level of stability to the system.

Granted, 6 years would be too long to be stuck with one if we elected a "bad" one. So, perhaps include the option to hold a vote no confidence every 2 years.

What say you?

 

[Craig234]

No. It's a very bad idea that will do nothing but turn our politicians into less powerful amateurs at the mercy of the bureaucracy and selected by special interests to run.

Pretty much all of our great politicians have decades of service; the ones to fear are the anonymous short timers who have no reason to put the people ahead of their sponsors.

 

[Infohawk]

California has term limits and it hasn't really made anything better. So while it sounds like a good idea, experience has shown otherwise.

 

[Slick5150]

No. It's a very bad idea that will do nothing but turn our politicians into less powerful amateurs at the mercy of the bureaucracy and selected by special interests to run.

This. It's been a complete disaster at the state level in Michigan. They have no idea what they're doing, do whatever the lobbyists tell them to do, and by the time they start to figure out how to actually run the government they're booted out and the cycle continues.

 

[mephiston5]

No. It's a very bad idea that will do nothing but turn our politicians into less powerful amateurs at the mercy of the bureaucracy and selected by special interests to run.

Personally, I like the idea of amateur politicians. Perhaps we could have a government more aware of life outside DC.

Also, I fail to see how term limits would increase dependence on special interest groups. I think you are fooling yourself if you think our current system somehow deals with that problem.

At least this way, they would be more free to act after getting elected...no need to worry about getting campaign money for next time (but still are held accountable by the people due to the vote of no confidence option).

 

[Craig234]

Personally, I like the idea of amateur politicians. Perhaps we could have a government more aware of life outside DC.

It's a romantic, misguided, outdated fantasy.

And it's dangerous. The problem isn't 'aware about things outside DC'.

Also, I fail to see how term limits would increase dependence on special interest groups. I think you are fooling yourself if you think our current system somehow deals with that problem.

First, making it worse. It absolutely would. Because rather than have some standing politicians well known in the community who don't need the backing of interests as much to get re-elected - Ted Kennedy wasn't a stranger to Massachussetts - you get a big crowd of potential candidates and none of them stand out unless they have this backing that's more important than ever to fund and market them to stand out.

A good example is when California had an open election for governor. There were something like 400 names on the ballot of all kinds of people.

Who won? Arnold Schwarzeneggar - the most recognizable name, who was independently wealthy for his campaign.

Elections become elections between strangers to the public who rely on the backing of interests, making the interests more powerful than ever.

At least this way, they would be more free to act after getting elected...no need to worry about getting campaign money for next time (but still are held accountable by the people due to the vote of no confidence option).

We don't need them 'more free to act after getting elected', when that freedom means free FROM the public re-electing them, to violate the public interest.

We already have a problem with that, because they put donors ahead of voters - we need LESS freedom to screw the public, not short-timers with MORE freedom to.

Second, the current system. Just because the current system has big problems doesn't have anything to do with making them worse with your suggestion.

We need to get money out of politics, not remove the best politicians and make the government a bunch of strangers selected by the special interests to serve them.

 

[mephiston5]

We need to get money out of politics, not remove the best politicians and make the government a bunch of strangers selected by the special interests to serve them.

I agree that our big problem is that money can buy votes. So, yes, we if could somehow separate the two, that would be at least part of the solution.

However, a large problem remains. Politicians do not like to deal with big problems that require unpopular choices. They tend to avoid certain issues as not to upset anyone. They don't want to hurt their chance of re-election. After all, how long have we known about the issues with social security...we are still no closer to a solution...I believe because fixing the problem would upset at least some large segment of the voter base, one way or the other.

 

[Nebor]

Craig is saying the lack of incentive to get re-elected will cause them to act in discord with the voting public's wishes.... and mephiston is saying that that needs to happen sometimes (ex: cutting social security, raising taxes, etc.)

 

[Nebor]

I support the limited terms approach, despite it's failures in practice in a few states. The idea of amateur politicians appeals to me. First you'd have to get money out of politics though.

And Craig's arguments about the "best politicians" being career politicians is ruined by his own example of Ted Kennedy. That guy didn't even care enough to live through his last term! And people rag on Sarah Palin for quitting the governorship of Alaska.

 

[IronWing]

I oppose term limits as I think folks should be able to vote for whomever they wish. If the voters want to reelect some scumbag again and again, so be it.

 

[Nebor]

I oppose term limits as I think folks should be able to vote for whomever they wish. If the voters want to reelect some scumbag again and again, so be it.

We should do away with the citizenship requirements for office then.

 

[monovillage]

It's much better to let the politicians go on and on with very long terms. That way they can really buddy up with special interests and lobbyists and earn the big bucks. When's the last time you saw a politician, any politician leave Washington poor? The longer a politician serves in Washington, the deeper they get into the pockets of the special interests. Some people like those long terms since it's their special interests that are being served. It will take a Constitutional Amendment to make it happen though.

 

[Craig234]

It's much better to let the politicians go on and on with very long terms. That way they can really buddy up with special interests and lobbyists and earn the big bucks. When's the last time you saw a politician, any politician leave Washington poor? The longer a politician serves in Washington, the deeper they get into the pockets of the special interests. Some people like those long terms since it's their special interests that are being served. It will take a Constitutional Amendment to make it happen though.

It's not that they're 'more in the pockets serving a long time'. Make them all new faces and they]ll be MORE in the pockets.

It's not about their getting rich in office.

It's about their being employees of the big donors who hire them to serve their interests.

And as for them getting rich, what they get in office is a joke. Half of them leave office to become lobbyists - look there for the problem.

I've said before and I'll repeat: the most expensive money we can save is by underpaying legislators. Doing so drives out the good ones and keeps the corrupt.

 

[Ausm]

Nothing will change until you control that amount of cash that flows through Washington.

 

[soulcougher73]

Id make it 4 years so progress would happen faster. No 2nd terms. You got 4 years to matter..make something of it. I think only the pres should be allowed to run for a 2nd term as it stands now. All other offices 4 and done.

The above all withstanding a change to make any donations/lobbying illegal. I want people in their who want to be their to attempt to make America a better place. NO carreer politicians just in it for the money.

 

[IronWing]

We should do away with the citizenship requirements for office then.

Way to reach for the brass ring of dumb.

 

[fskimospy]

Absolutely not. For many of the more complex regulatory issues, intelligence issues, etc, it takes years for those in Congress to really get a handle on them. Adding term limits would shift the regulation of those entities towards the permanent bureaucracy out of necessity, and I doubt that's what people want.

 

[Moonbeam]

All these plans are an attempt to save us from candidates that are corporate owned and need to spend all their time lying as to why they should be re-elected. This will just mean that corporations have to buy two new candidates every term, not that hare to do.

The only way our, the only way to save ourselves from the fact that we must chose the lesser of two evils is to take our elections back. We need a constitutional amendment via a Constitutional Convention that replaces the supreme court decisions that money is speech and corporations are people, public funded elections and a low limit on how much you can donated as a citizen. We need a cultural change where the politicians can only be elected and re-elected if they are serve the people because they won't be able to spend vast sums of the 1% to brain wash folk and somebody who will serve the people has as much voice as they do in campaigns. And we need none of the above and the ability to vote in tiers, first choice and if he or she doesn't win, the vote goes to a second politician and so on. This will mean you can vote for a third party without wasting a vote.

 

[monovillage]

If serving for a long time really makes you better at running a country, then maybe we should go to an aristocracy to run the country? That way our political leaders could be trained from an early age and then legislate all of their lives. That's the ticket!

 

[fskimospy]

If serving for a long time really makes you better at running a country, then maybe we should go to an aristocracy to run the country? That way our political leaders could be trained from an early age and then legislate all of their lives. That's the ticket!

*sigh* Experience with certain issues makes them more effective at dealing with them, yes. Clearly experience with the issues is not the only requirement for holding office, and so of course we shouldn't have a permanent legislature, and of course citizens should have recourse if they feel that their representatives are serving them poorly.

 

[matt0611]

I think maybe 12 years would be better. you get either 2 terms elected in the senate or 6 in the house. Or 1 in the senate and 3 in the house etc.

 

[monovillage]

*sigh* Experience with certain issues makes them more effective at dealing with them, yes. Clearly experience with the issues is not the only requirement for holding office, and so of course we shouldn't have a permanent legislature, and of course citizens should have recourse if they feel that their representatives are serving them poorly.

I just like the idea that they have 12 years in the Senate, and 6 years in the House. A possible total of 18 years of "public service" and then they get sent home. But then i'd also like to see the nations capitol moved to Kansas and let D.C. go back to Maryland.

 

[QuantumPion]

Nothing will change until you control that amount of cash that flows through Washington.

Agreed! Since when did you convert to small government libertarianism? :awe:

 

[fskimospy]

I just like the idea that they have 12 years in the Senate, and 6 years in the House. A possible total of 18 years of "public service" and then they get sent home. But then i'd also like to see the nations capitol moved to Kansas and let D.C. go back to Maryland.

That would severely neuter the House committees on a bunch of different issues and make them a secondary part of the legislative branch. I also think that convincing lots of people to move to Kansas might be a tough sell.

 

[Lithium381]

Agreed! Since when did you convert to small government libertarianism? :awe:

yeah that's a 180 from what his normal blather is..... unless when he means "change" he means pump more in there so the polititians can't be bought. . .