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

[Jhhnn]

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

Or some great voter epiphany, like 1932.

 

[ivwshane]

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

No, the courts are the last level of defense. The cure is an electorate that participates and votes for politicians that actually are willing to address the issue in a non partisan way. Its possible and it has been done in several states now, including California.

 

[hal2kilo]

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.

We are horribly under represented, leading to things like gerrymandering. I think the number of congress persons should be quadrupled at a minimum. Last time it was changed was 1911.

 

[desura]

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.

Maybe. But why not do both?

Most of the

We are horribly under represented, leading to things like gerrymandering. I think the number of congress persons should be quadrupled at a minimum. Last time it was changed was 1911.

It is harder to Gerrymander a Senate seat because the territory is so large. Much easier to gerrymander a House seat or county government seat.

 

[kage69]

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.

Regardless of where someone stands on term limits, everyone should be able to recognize the power seniority has in Washington.

Legislating a regular turn-over of politicians is a boon to the lobbyists, but I can see why the GOP would prefer to empower corporate interests who are unhindered by duties of office, oaths, etc. It sounds great in theory, but in reality it will result in more power being consolidated into the business realm instead of the political realm.

As it's been said before, we already kinda have term limits. They're called elections. It isn't surprising that the vote-suppressing GOP would prefer their inner workings to be less influenced by the action of voters though.

I'd rather see some much needed certification requirements for holding office, particularly PoTUS. IQ and mental health bars should be be set, maybe a drug test too.

While I'm wishing for things I'll add in making gerrymandering and corruption illegal.

 

[brycejones]

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

I disagree there are ways to attack the problem that focus around taking the creation of districts out of the hands of state legislators and moving that responsibility to a commission created solely to address redistricting. See California:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission

 

[brycejones]

It is harder to Gerrymander a Senate seat because the territory is so large.

Go back to civics class do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Senate seats are state wide elections always no gerrymandering is possible.

 

[Brainonska511]

Maybe. But why not do both?

Your solution of cutting representatives from the House still has the HUGE problem of further eroding large-state power, which is already eroded thanks to the artificial cap of 435 representatives. Stop trying to give small states even more power.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

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

I disagree there are ways to attack the problem that focus around taking the creation of districts out of the hands of state legislators and moving that responsibility to a commission created solely to address redistricting. See California:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission

Yeah, which is why California had 2 Democrats running for the last Senate seat in the 2016 election. It's just gerrymandering with a different name.

 

[Jhhnn]

Go back to civics class do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Senate seats are state wide elections always no gerrymandering is possible.

Very, very few Americans don't know that, particularly not ones as persuasive as desura.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, which is why California had 2 Democrats running for the last Senate seat in the 2016 election. It's just gerrymandering with a different name.

CA Repubs had the same opportunity to get a candidate on the ballot as Dems & failed. They couldn't even come in second in the primary let alone win the general election.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

CA Repubs had the same opportunity to get a candidate on the ballot as Dems & failed. They couldn't even come in second in the primary let alone win the general election.

The same can be said about Gerrymandering. In this case Democrats changed the rule book to favor them and to get what they want and to guarantee their parties election. No difference, just another flavor.

 

[brycejones]

Yeah, which is why California had 2 Democrats running for the last Senate seat in the 2016 election. It's just gerrymandering with a different name.

Wow a party neutral primary is the same as gerrymandering. Do you eat lead paint chips for breakfast everyday?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Wow a party neutral primary is the same as gerrymandering. Do you eat lead paint chips for breakfast everyday?

You're an idiot, i doubt if you have a clue how it worked or how self identified "Independents" were given so much power to vote Democratic. It was just an perfect example of how to manipulate a vote to get a particular party elected. You're in favor of it because it got your guys elected, just the same as you'd oppose anything that got Republicans elected. Same shit, just a different stink.

 

[fskimospy]

You're an idiot, i doubt if you have a clue how it worked or how self identified "Independents" were given so much power to vote Democratic. It was just an perfect example of how to manipulate a vote to get a particular party elected. You're in favor of it because it got your guys elected, just the same as you'd oppose anything that got Republicans elected. Same shit, just a different stink.

Please tell us how it was manipulated.

 

[brycejones]

You're an idiot, i doubt if you have a clue how it worked or how self identified "Independents" were given so much power to vote Democratic. It was just an perfect example of how to manipulate a vote to get a particular party elected. You're in favor of it because it got your guys elected, just the same as you'd oppose anything that got Republicans elected. Same shit, just a different stink.

I support open primaries because it tends to produce candidates that are more to the middle. Radicals on either extreme are useless to me.

Keep eating those paint chips skippy.

 

[Sonikku]

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.

And besides, without term limits we could have reluctantly re-elected Obama and Biden without having to utterly humiliate ourselves on the international stage putting up with the either of the two clowns we were offered to replace him with.

 

[Jhhnn]

The same can be said about Gerrymandering. In this case Democrats changed the rule book to favor them and to get what they want and to guarantee their parties election. No difference, just another flavor.

You're an idiot, i doubt if you have a clue how it worked or how self identified "Independents" were given so much power to vote Democratic. It was just an perfect example of how to manipulate a vote to get a particular party elected. You're in favor of it because it got your guys elected, just the same as you'd oppose anything that got Republicans elected. Same shit, just a different stink.

The non-partisan blanket primary is used in other states-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_blanket_primary

What it means is that neither party is guaranteed a slot on the general election ballot.

In CA, Repubs knew they didn't have a prayer in the general election so a dozen of 'em strutted around practicing for a race they might win in the future rather than exercising party discipline to get a candidate on the general election ballot.

Which makes them victims, somehow.

 

[MrSquished]

Wow a party neutral primary is the same as gerrymandering. Do you eat lead paint chips for breakfast everyday?

lead paint chips for breakfast? that's just the start. it's huffing glue for lunch and then standing next to very high levels of radiation for dinner

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Term limits seem nice on paper, but what if your senate / congress vote is like this election? Your choices are a giant douche or turd sandwich.

I would take having more options (3rd party actually having a chance) or eliminating parties on the ballot altogether. The first option would allow for more selection. The second option would make stupid ass voters have to do more research then clicking "Democrat ballot" or "Republican ballot" and hitting vote in 5 seconds.

 

[JEDIYoda]

yep

 

[Maxima1]

This is completely asinine without other reforms. Donors will still pick the politicians and the politicians will still pick the voters. The GOP has already shown they don't want reform for campaign finance and gerrymandering.

 

[BurnItDwn]

We should limit party size to a maximum of 10 people.

 

[Jhhnn]

Expect a lot of distractional bullshit from Repubs as smokescreen for what will be their real accomplishments. You know, stuff like investor class tax cuts, gutting financial regulations along with the EPA, Energy dept, Education dept & so forth.

 

[brycejones]

Expect a lot of distractional bullshit from Repubs as smokescreen for what will be their real accomplishments. You know, stuff like investor class tax cuts, gutting financial regulations along with the EPA, Energy dept, Education dept & so forth.

Oil change places can't expand because they are forbidden from dumping oil down the drain. These job killing regulations need to go!