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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
The young rebels of the GOP in the 1990s were hugely behind term limits. Of course nearly every single one of them ran again after their self-imposed limits passed. Perhaps they honestly thought no one else could do the job as well as they could. Perhaps.

I used to be in favor of term limits, but the older I get I see them more as enabling ideologues who won't be around to take the blame/suffer the consequences for the results of their decisions.

I'd much rather leave it up to the voters-in clean, non-gerrymandered elections.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,742
6,761
126
The world has changed so why is it that we go along and get along with what was done in an age before electronic media, when everybody could make their wishes known any time of day or night on any issue. People don't vote or care about elections now because what they want never gets done anyway. Political parties are there for the powerful few to get what they want and what they want is more money, It's time, I think, for the congress to be me voting on my computer TV. Many ways could be devised to prevent spurious ill considered voting like having to pass a constitutional test annually to vote and some form of test to demonstrate proficiency with the issues up for vote., Governments are instituted among men and women for the purpose of securing their inalienable rights and instintaneous electronic voting can now give that right to the people without the need for representation at a distance. There nolonger is any distance that requires that. Change the game, it is our right to establish government that best serves our interest. This government we have now does not. It serves the parties asnd they serve themselves before they serve us.
 

FIVR

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2016
3,753
911
106
Every American should serve a random, mandatory 3 day term in congress, just like jury duty. There, I solved the problem of term limits. You're welcome.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,493
5,708
136
Potential side effect
Campaign financing + terms limits = Koch brothers and Soros controlling elections.
Existing party leadership at least offer some level of checks and balances.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,519
17,024
136
Horrible idea. As was already mentioned, even more representatives would be in a constant state of running for office. This would lead to even less getting done and the potential for greater influence from money would be even more likely due to having to constantly raise funds for reelection. It would also cause the house to be run by inexperienced people. Add on top of that it would create more unaccountable representatives who most likely could put their votes to the highest bidders.

What really needs to happen is an increase in voter districts so that districts are more equal in size and smaller which will also give better representation to the people.
 

desura

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2013
4,627
129
101
Term limits are dumb. They destroy institutional knowledge and experience.

If anything, we need to make House seats like 3 year terms, and reduce the number of them.
 

FIVR

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2016
3,753
911
106
That's a horrible idea.

Horribly awesome, you mean. It would be both fun and educational to have average joe schmoe crafting and voting on legislation. We could each have our own congressional proposal, which we would introduce on our 1st day, discuss on the 2nd and vote on the 3rd.


If you like, you could keep the senate and just do this for the house. It would be the ultimate form of voter enfranchisement.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,758
2,086
136
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.
"At least Trump made some rumblings"
Seriously ? Some rumblings? It was #1 in his contract released in October 2016.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-...roundbreaking-contract-for-the-american-vote1
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
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.

More false promises with no hope of delivery? And you fall for it?
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
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.
What you really mean is 30% of the eligible voters show up to vote in a representative for the 100%.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
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.

I would go for doubling the terms and limiting them to one, that way they would not spend 3/4 of their term running for office. And that would only be successive terms, they could run again only after a real job in between to connect them back to the world.
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,720
13,883
136
If anything, we need to make House seats like 3 year terms, and reduce the number of them.
That would further concentrate power in smaller states when they already have a disproportionate influence over the legislative process. If anything, we need to remove the artificial cap on representatives so district sizes have more equal populations across the different states.

Horribly awesome, you mean. It would be both fun and educational to have average joe schmoe crafting and voting on legislation. We could each have our own congressional proposal, which we would introduce on our 1st day, discuss on the 2nd and vote on the 3rd.

If you like, you could keep the senate and just do this for the house. It would be the ultimate form of voter enfranchisement.

Yeah, that idea is still horrible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane
Dec 10, 2005
28,720
13,883
136
I would go for doubling the terms and limiting them to one, that way they would not spend 3/4 of their term running for office. And that would only be successive terms but only after a real job in between to connect them back to the world.
I think that would be worse -they could just lie about their positions to get into office with no repercussions. Voting is the ultimate check on legislators actions and the scheme you suggest would destroy it.
 

desura

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2013
4,627
129
101
Reason to reduce the number of House seats is to improve the quality of deliberation. 435 decision making members is a ridiculous number. A hundred in the Senate actually makes stuff difficult as well.

How many people sit on a corporation's board? Like 4-12, right?
 
Dec 10, 2005
28,720
13,883
136
Reason to reduce the number of House seats is to improve the quality of deliberation. 435 decision making members is a ridiculous number. A hundred in the Senate actually makes stuff difficult as well.

How many people sit on a corporation's board? Like 4-12, right?
If you want to improve the quality of deliberation, why not decentralize the power structure of the House back to the committees? The centralization of legislative authority in the leadership structure likely does more to destroy debate than anything else.

Removing representatives will objectively give greater power to small states and further disenfranchise people who happen to live in larger population states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane
Jul 9, 2009
10,758
2,086
136
It usually breaks down this way. Conservatives favor term limits since they don't believe there should be an entitled political ruling class and leftists oppose term limits because they favor an elite establishment ruling class. I favor term limits. 6 years in the House, 12 years in the Senate.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,356
32,984
136
It usually breaks down this way. Conservatives favor term limits since they don't believe there should be an entitled political ruling class and leftists oppose term limits because they favor an elite establishment ruling class. I favor term limits. 6 years in the House, 12 years in the Senate.
This assertion is supported by all the NC Democrats voting to strip the incoming GOP governor of as much power as possible before he takes over, because obviously the Democrats were entitled to that power while they had it but the new GOP governor shouldn't have it because he isn't "establishment."
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,519
17,024
136
This assertion is supported by all the NC Democrats voting to strip the incoming GOP governor of as much power as possible before he takes over, because obviously the Democrats were entitled to that power while they had it but the new GOP governor shouldn't have it because he isn't "establishment."

Unfortunately for you, righties don't get sarcasm so your post will only enforce his beliefs instead of question them.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Fix the gerrymandering problem, make districts more competitive and institute instant run-offs.

The whole reason gerrymandering is a problem is because it's not easily fixed. The only real hedge against it are the courts.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Unfortunately for you, righties don't get sarcasm so your post will only enforce his beliefs instead of question them.

Taj is a shill. He just spouts the company line. Doesn't mean he believes any of it. It's the essence of the insincerity of right wing mouthpieces- they don't believe in anything but winning but the know other people do so they pitch to it, invite the listener to fill in the blanks from their imaginations.

If Dems stood up & said "Term limits? What a great idea!" Repubs would shit themselves.

Trump is gonna make America great again, for sure. I mean, we were great in 1931, weren't we?