Some GOP efforts I can get behind...term limit proposals

[vi edit]

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/312571-cruz-desantis-push-for-congressional-term-limits

"Under an amendment the two GOP lawmakers filed on Tuesday, House members would be allowed to serve three two-year terms and senators would be able to serve two six-year terms. "

Of course McConnell and Ryan are complaining about it. It looks like it's got a snowballs chance. At least Trump made some rumblings during the campaign that he supported limits. Will interesting to see the party butt heads on this. It's got a very uphill battle to win.

I'm all for term limits. People are far too complacent when it comes to elections and just keep voting the same name over and over again. Then we end up with career obstructionists like McConnell. If there was actually a chance to someone can take the torch maybe we can get a bit more youth and originality into these positions.

 

[fskimospy]

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/312571-cruz-desantis-push-for-congressional-term-limits

"Under an amendment the two GOP lawmakers filed on Tuesday, House members would be allowed to serve three two-year terms and senators would be able to serve two six-year terms. "

Of course McConnell and Ryan are complaining about it. It looks like it's got a snowballs chance. At least Trump made some rumblings during the campaign that he supported limits. Will interesting to see the party butt heads on this. It's got a very uphill battle to win.

I'm all for term limits. People are far too complacent when it comes to elections and just keep voting the same name over and over again. Then we end up with career obstructionists like McConnell. If there was actually a chance to someone can take the torch maybe we can get a bit more youth and originality into these positions.

Term limits will likely lead to additional partisan polarization. It will also lead to a further erosion of the power of the legislature in favor of the executive. Not sure if we need more of either one of those.

 

[vi edit]

Term limits will likely lead to additional partisan polarization. It will also lead to a further erosion of the power of the legislature in favor of the executive. Not sure if we need more of either one of those.

I could contend that it may allow better paths to 3rd party candidates at a state level helping mix up partisanship.

 

[fskimospy]

I could contend that it may allow better paths to 3rd party candidates at a state level helping mix up partisanship.

If that were the case then shouldn't we see third party candidates win in current elections when there is no incumbent running? Those elections happen all the time but third party victories are still very rare.

 

[OutHouse]

long over due.

 

[brycejones]

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/312571-cruz-desantis-push-for-congressional-term-limits

"Under an amendment the two GOP lawmakers filed on Tuesday, House members would be allowed to serve three two-year terms and senators would be able to serve two six-year terms. "

Of course McConnell and Ryan are complaining about it. It looks like it's got a snowballs chance. At least Trump made some rumblings during the campaign that he supported limits. Will interesting to see the party butt heads on this. It's got a very uphill battle to win.

I'm all for term limits. People are far too complacent when it comes to elections and just keep voting the same name over and over again. Then we end up with career obstructionists like McConnell. If there was actually a chance to someone can take the torch maybe we can get a bit more youth and originality into these positions.

Honestly I would be more in favor of something that put a major crimp in gerrymandering and made more districts competitive. There is some value in having experienced legislators in office. 3 two year terms would shift a lot of power to lobbyists and house staff members.

 

[vi edit]

If that were the case then shouldn't we see third party candidates win in current elections when there is no incumbent running? Those elections happen all the time but third party victories are still very rare.

I think it's a chicken and egg thing. Maybe there is no push by third parties since there is the reality that a "traditional" platform can come in and just get planted easily and stay there.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

yea, I think you'd see a general consensus from everyone to limit terms on senators and congress, save for the folks holding office.

 

[fskimospy]

I think it's a chicken and egg thing. Maybe there is no push by third parties since there is the reality that a "traditional" platform can come in and just get planted easily and stay there.

I basically agree on that, but I think it's a flaw in our electoral system. Any third party is inevitably going to be more appealing to one of the two major parties' voters and in our system 50.1% of the vote gets 100% of the representation. In those cases it means that voting for the third party candidate actually makes the election of your LEAST preferred candidate more likely. We won't get more parties to choose from until we change how we elect people I think.

 

[Brainonska511]

yea, I think you'd see a general consensus from everyone to limit terms on senators and congress, save for the folks holding office.

Why? There is value in having experience legislators. There is already a check built into the system anyway: voting. If you don't like your incumbent, vote them out.

 

[dullard]

yea, I think you'd see a general consensus from everyone to limit terms on senators and congress, save for the folks holding office.

I certainly don't support term limits. I don't support anything that arbitrarily takes away my ability to vote for whomever I want to vote for. Term limits means giving up a major constitutional right (voting for whomever you want) to solve a problem that can be fixed in numerous, far less onerous ways (for example proportional representation voting instead of winner takes all, or eliminating barriers to third parties, or the old-fashioned way of convincing people with valid logic). Term limits also are a back-hand way to undermine the constitution's separation of power by seriously weakening the legislative branch to the point that it could be rendered useless if the term limits are too strict.

General consensus certainly won't happen either. Republicans were strongly for term limits in the early 1990s when they were out of power. Now they are against term limits. Even individual congressmen who ran mostly on supporting term limits change their tune as soon as they are elected. If you can't get consensus within the same person, you can't get general consensus from many people.

 

[Atreus21]

I was all for term limits on legislators. Now I'm conflicted.

I hate the fact that incumbents are so difficult to dislodge.

 

[dank69]

Nope. The only power we voters possess is the power to vote people out of office. When a representative no longer has to worry about reelection he is free to do whatever he wants. We call these people lame ducks for a reason.

 

[NTMBK]

I'd say put limits on Congress, but not on the Senate. The Senate is intended to be the experienced, responsible bulwark that prevents impulsive, poorly thought out legislation from going through.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I certainly don't support term limits. I don't support anything that arbitrarily takes away my ability to vote for whomever I want to vote for. Term limits means giving up a major constitutional right (voting for whomever you want) to solve a problem that can be fixed in numerous, far less onerous ways (for example proportional representation voting instead of winner takes all, or eliminating barriers to third parties, or the old-fashioned way of convincing people with valid logic). Term limits also are a back-hand way to undermine the constitution's separation of power by seriously weakening the legislative branch to the point that it could be rendered useless if the term limits are too strict.

General consensus certainly won't happen either. Republicans were strongly for term limits in the early 1990s when they were out of power. Now they are against term limits. Even individual congressmen who ran mostly on supporting term limits change their tune as soon as they are elected. If you can't get consensus within the same person, you can't get general consensus from many people.

That is a very fair, and accurate argument against term limits. What's so striking is the horribly low approval rating of congress, yet at the local level, a sitting congresscritter usually retains their seat.
And then they become so entrenched into the system. honestly I am a bit torn between the two ideas as well.

 

[momeNt]

I kind of thought like, voting, was a sort of term limit.

Guess not?

 

[pauldun170]

Why? There is value in having experience legislators. There is already a check built into the system anyway: voting. If you don't like your incumbent, vote them out.

This is a good point.
What term limits do is take the power away from voters and places it in the hands of the party system.
The Republican National Committee would now have more power to encroach on traditionally democratic districts by using what they perceive as a superior organizational strategy.
Individual legislators who support this might see this as an opportunity to remove "the old guard" standing in their way.

On the other side of the coin, disrupting organizational structure in each of the parties might benefit voters by forcing a fresh flow of new perspectives into the party system. However, when you have a complex structures where both those outside and inside of the beltway controlling party platforms it does get tricky.
A fresh flow of new legislators who are all pushing party platforms doesn't buy you much.

Republicans are more than happy to push this because they do not see much risk on how this could benefit the democratic party because they simply aren't as cohesive a movement to begin with. Not too long ago some democrats were pushing this when they saw weakness in the GOP. Common denominator always seemed to be junior legislators bitching about party bosses getting in their way.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I could contend that it may allow better paths to 3rd party candidates at a state level helping mix up partisanship.

Don't think so. You merely change the mask of the R or D which it represents. We need a way to break the partisan stranglehold. I think adding one candidate to every ballot "None of the above" would do more. If "None" wins the election is rerun in a month with a completely different slate of candidates. Rinse, repeat. Either parties will get that they can't dump a Hillary or Trump on us or another choice will appear.

 

[vi edit]

Don't think so. You merely change the mask of the R or D which it represents. We need a way to break the partisan stranglehold. I think adding one candidate to every ballot "None of the above" would do more. If "None" wins the election is rerun in a month with a completely different slate of candidates. Rinse, repeat. Either parties will get that they can't dump a Hillary or Trump on us or another choice will appear.

Basically runoff elections. Which I would support as well. But they seem more useful in a primary and even a national presidential election instead of a state based one.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

This is trying to fix a problem from the wrong end. Term limits are silly and won't change the incumbent party problem.

 

[dank69]

That is a very fair, and accurate argument against term limits. What's so striking is the horribly low approval rating of congress, yet at the local level, a sitting congresscritter usually retains their seat.
And then they become so entrenched into the system. honestly I am a bit torn between the two ideas as well.

There are two factors contributing to this IMO. Number one: most people hate Congress but like their Congresscritters. It's those OTHER Congresscritters that are the problem. Number two: most people are ignorant and/or stupid. Most people couldn't figure out where their candidates really stand on different issues if you emailed them a link to http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

 

[theeedude]

It's a horrible idea. You'll have half the senators and a third of representatives as unaccountable lame ducks at all times, focused on doing favors to get their next job instead of serving their constituents.

 

[soulcougher73]

For the people who support no term limits why dont you also want the same for the president then? I mean...who else would be more experienced than the current president Since that is the argument for it im reading..experience

 

[brycejones]

Fix the gerrymandering problem, make districts more competitive and institute instant run-offs.

 

[Brainonska511]

For the people who support no term limits why dont you also want the same for the president then? I mean...who else would be more experienced than the current president Since that is the argument for it im reading..experience

We should get rid of term limits for the presidency too. If people like the president, they should be allowed to continue voting for him or her, should he or she want to run again.