Poll: Term limits for house and Senate

[Ibleedburgundy]

OK, I didn't want to highjack the Jefferson corruption thread but I think it would be fun to debate the merits of term limits.

Basically, I am in favor of having term limits because I like having new blood in the federal Government.

[CNYSkinFan]

i voted against for the same reasons I said before in the other thread.

[fent]

i voted against for the same reasons I said before in the other thread.

ditto.

[Spence]

I haven't voted yet, but I'll probably vote OTHER or FAVOR TERM LIMITS. In general, I oppose all term limits as un-democratic. However, far more un-democratic, in my view, is the way congressional districts are drawn and political campaigns are funded. When over 90% of incumbents are regularly re-elected in poorly-attended elections, I find it hard to accept any pro-democracy arguments in favor of the current system.

Take districting away from politicians and go to public funding of elections and I'll oppose term limits. Until then, I regard them as the lesser of evils.

[CNYSkinFan]

I haven't voted yet, but I'll probably vote OTHER or FAVOR TERM LIMITS. In general, I oppose all term limits as un-democratic. However, far more un-democratic, in my view, is the way congressional districts are drawn and political campaigns are funded. When over 90% of incumbents are regularly re-elected in poorly-attended elections, I find it hard to accept any pro-democracy arguments in favor of the current system.

Take districting away from politicians and go to public funding of elections and I'll oppose term limits. Until then, I regard them as the lesser of evils.
But what about corruption? I know many incumbants get re-elected, but it is much cheaper and easier for a special interest to buy off incoming reps then to get a long term influential incumbent to change their long running position against their interest. I just feel lobbys like the tobacco, gun, and oil cartels would *LOVE* term limits because they could buy off first time candidates and own them for years at a time and if he switches, no problem, you just have to wait him out.

As or redistriciting, I don't know how to handle that. Unless you put it in the hands of a body akin to the Supreme Court (lifetime appointees who are free to vote their conscious) then politicians will always be iunvolved. It is tempting to say that there should be no adjustments to districts but huge population shifts can put the system of representative democracy out of balance.

[lakewinola]

Take districting away from politicians and go to public funding of elections and I'll oppose term limits. Until then, I regard them as the lesser of evils.


I can write an algorithm that would do just that.

[CNYSkinFan]

sure then the Machines will rise to power

http://www.edge-online.co.uk/archives/terminator-thumb.jpg

[fent]

redistricting is a wholly different issue and one that provides many problems. there are some that want Texas to allow the judges to handle the issue being that they're "impartial"...newsflash for all you TX kids suggesting that...your judges are elected too. i don't know that you can do it at the federal level as with Dustin's suggestion either. there would be major fights over federal vs states' rights in that debate.

[Spence]

But what about corruption? I know many incumbants get re-elected, but it is much cheaper and easier for a special interest to buy off incoming reps then to get a long term influential incumbent to change their long running position against their interest. I just feel lobbys like the tobacco, gun, and oil cartels would *LOVE* term limits because they could buy off first time candidates and own them for years at a time and if he switches, no problem, you just have to wait him out.Dustin, you've been paying attention to what is going on inside the Beltway. Does it seem to you that it is particularly difficult to buy the services of many members of Congress? You're suggesting that corruption in D.C. could get worse with term limits. I'm not really sure how it could get worse. The system is irredeemably corrupt as currently constructed. Term limits offer a chance at improving that situation, even if only marginally.

The way to radically improve our system of democracy is to move to public financing of elections. Members of Congress don't work that much anymore, if you define work as that actual business of government. [If you include fundraising in your definition of work then they are now working harder than ever -- but not on the public's business. They're working to further the interests of monied elites who want to pervert the free market and rig the system in their own favor. That's work of a sort, I grant you, but hardly the sort of work elected representatives ought to be paid for.

[RedskinsDave]

I am against them because if people want to keep electing the same guy they should be allowed to no matter how much he and his son are drunks.

[akhhorus]

Term limits just mean that someone else we get the chance to see the new guy be same ***CENSORED BY SPENCE***hole in a few years like the guy they replaced. It doesn't fix the problem. If you change the election laws where you have the options: Incumbent, challenger, none of the above; and the "none of the above get more than say, 1/3 of the vote, then both candidates are disqualified and new elections are held.

[Spence]

If you change the election laws where you have the options: Incumbent, challenger, none of the above; and the "none of the above get more than say, 1/3 of the vote, then both candidates are disqualified and new elections are held.In our current atmosphere that'll mean constant elections. Let's call it the Stuart Rothenberg Employment Act. :)

[CNYSkinFan]

Dustin, you've been paying attention to what is going on inside the Beltway. Does it seem to you that it is particularly difficult to buy the services of many members of Congress? You're suggesting that corruption in D.C. could get worse with term limits. I'm not really sure how it could get worse. The system is irredeemably corrupt as currently constructed. Term limits offer a chance at improving that situation, even if only marginally.

The way to radically improve our system of democracy is to move to public financing of elections. Members of Congress don't work that much anymore, if you define work as that actual business of government. [If you include fundraising in your definition of work then they are now working harder than ever -- but not on the public's business. They're working to further the interests of monied elites who want to pervert the free market and rig the system in their own favor. That's work of a sort, I grant you, but hardly the sort of work elected representatives ought to be paid for.

Any time someone says it can't get worse I cringe because invariably it can.

What is going on today in DC is sickening. We have legalized bribery. But teh solution of term limits is no real solution at all., Term limits will only restrict the time for which you can be bribed, not reduce the bribery. And As I pointed out it will actually be easier for special interest to get the hand picked candidates into office with so many open seats each election.

If we want to attck the issue, go for public financing and real campaign reform, and elect candidates who support those issues and if they don't hold up to those promises, throw them out on their ear in 2 years.

[CNYSkinFan]

Term limits just mean that someone else we get the chance to see the new guy be same ***CENSORED BY SPENCE***hole in a few years like the guy they replaced. It doesn't fix the problem. If you change the election laws where you have the options: Incumbent, challenger, none of the above; and the "none of the above get more than say, 1/3 of the vote, then both candidates are disqualified and new elections are held.

Ugh. the NOTA option has been tried before in Oregon and other places I believe. I am not a big fan of NOTA because one could then make the argument those registered voters who did not bother to vote are actually voting NOTA as well...and so on and so forth. 2 candidates and in some cases 3 or 4 vying for the same seat is good enough for me. We need better candidates not institutionalized apathy.

[Spence]

What is going on today in DC is sickening. We have legalized bribery. But teh solution of term limits is no real solution at all., Term limits will only restrict the time for which you can be bribed, not reduce the bribery.
...
If we want to attck the issue, go for public financing and real campaign reform, and elect candidates who support those issues and if they don't hold up to those promises, throw them out on their ear in 2 years.Well, that's pretty close to what I wrote. Public financing of elections is the only solution likely to have a significant impact. Barring that, though, I'll take term limits. My preference is for public financing because I think it might actually work. If I can't have that and term limits is the best I can do then I'll take term limits. Our system for electing members of Congress is the most un-democratic in the free world.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I'm not looking at term limits as a way to solve every problem I just get frustrated by career politicians and how impossible it is to dethrone them. I don't see how term limits would increase lobbyists influence-sure they get more opportunities to get their boy in there, but by that same token, their guy gets removed. Corruption probably wouldn't decrease it all that much either but I think it would shake up the good 'ole boy networks from time to time and that is a good thing. If constituents really like a Representative or Senator, they can elect a guy with similar values as Virginians did with their Governor.

Another benefit of term limits is that it promotes diversity, and not just racial diversity. Diversity of ideas.

I would be curious to see how many terms the most corrupt of the Reps have served. Jefferson is not exactly a rookie, so how many of these stunts did he pull off before he got caught? Would he have even been caught were it not for hurricane Katrina?

[Ibleedburgundy]

In general, I oppose all term limits as un-democratic.

Even Presidential ones?

[CNYSkinFan]

Even Presidential ones?
Here is where I agree with term limits. I know it sounds hypocritical but here me out. Executive term limits are needed because of the sheer size and scope of the presidency. No other branch of government is so dependent on the wishes and power of one man, the President. The power and limitless ablity to effect the entire country outweighs the wishes of the populace to have a leader for more then 8 years.

[akhhorus]

Well, that's pretty close to what I wrote. Public financing of elections is the only solution likely to have a significant impact. Barring that, though, I'll take term limits. My preference is for public financing because I think it might actually work. If I can't have that and term limits is the best I can do then I'll take term limits. Our system for electing members of Congress is the most un-democratic in the free world.

The problem with public financing is that it won't help things. Rich candidates will fight and get the right to spend their own money in a campaign and their will be a proliferation of independant groups like MoveOn, the Swift Boats, etc; Who attack candidates and don't endorse anyone to get around these restrictions.

[akhhorus]

Even Presidential ones?

There wasn't one until 1951. It was just accepted custom not to run for more than 2 terms since Washington only served two terms. After FDR won four terms, the US decided to put in limits. And there's a difference between limiting Senators and Congressmen, who have little to no individual impact, and one on the chief executive.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Here is where I agree with term limits. I know it sounds hypocritical but here me out. Executive term limits are needed because of the sheer size and scope of the presidency. No other branch of government is so dependent on the wishes and power of one man, the President. The power and limitless ablity to effect the entire country outweighs the wishes of the populace to have a leader for more then 8 years.

I don't think that's hypocritical by any stretch. You don't have to advocate the same treatment for three different jobs. I actually included "other" as part of the poll because I thought somebody might have a reason for term limits in the house but not the senate or vice-versa.

The other argument you made was that it would be easier for special interest groups to get their guy to win a primary than it would be for them to defeat a respected incumbant. I have mixed feelings on this. I'd hate to see a good Rep go but at the same time, if the people really respect a Representative, he will have a large amount of influence on who may be his successor. Too many factors to calculate and I think it would really depend on the specifics of each district.

[Keino]

But what about corruption? I know many incumbants get re-elected, but it is much cheaper and easier for a special interest to buy off incoming reps then to get a long term influential incumbent to change their long running position against their interest. I just feel lobbys like the tobacco, gun, and oil cartels would *LOVE* term limits because they could buy off first time candidates and own them for years at a time and if he switches, no problem, you just have to wait him out.

As or redistriciting, I don't know how to handle that. Unless you put it in the hands of a body akin to the Supreme Court (lifetime appointees who are free to vote their conscious) then politicians will always be iunvolved. It is tempting to say that there should be no adjustments to districts but huge population shifts can put the system of representative democracy out of balance.

I haven't voted either, but it seems to me Dustin, you are opposing what is already going on. What lobbys are more powerful than the 3 you name?

As for the redistricting issue, Im really not sure there is a solution.

[fent]

the coalition of those opposing term limits is quite an odd couple...

[Spence]

Even Presidential ones?Yes.

[Keino]

redistricting is a wholly different issue and one that provides many problems. there are some that want Texas to allow the judges to handle the issue being that they're "impartial"...newsflash for all you TX kids suggesting that...your judges are elected too. i don't know that you can do it at the federal level as with Dustin's suggestion either. there would be major fights over federal vs states' rights in that debate.

Let the illegals immigrants draw the district lines. Could potentially solve 2 problems at once. They get saddled with that responsibility they would be screaming to get back.....

[Spence]

The problem with public financing is that it won't help things. Rich candidates will fight and get the right to spend their own money in a campaign and their will be a proliferation of independant groups like MoveOn, the Swift Boats, etc; Who attack candidates and don't endorse anyone to get around these restrictions.There are ways to deal with that. Some of them might require a constitutional amendment, but I never said it would be easy. You can solve the millionaire problem by lifting spending caps for candidates facing a self-funder. We do a version of that already.

[akhhorus]

There are ways to deal with that. Some of them might require a constitutional amendment, but I never said it would be easy. You can solve the millionaire problem by lifting spending caps for candidates facing a self-funder. We do a version of that already.

Too many special interests will stop any real change before it comes close to fixing things.

[Keino]

Yes.

Now thats an interesting proposition. What if Clinton would've run against Bush in 2000.........


I tend to like the idea of term limits for the Executive. I'd like to see them for the SCOTUS as well, instead of the lifetime appointment. Make it 20 years.

[fent]

Let the illegals immigrants draw the district lines. Could potentially solve 2 problems at once. They get saddled with that responsibility they would be screaming to get back.....

i think you have it backwards... the bureaucracy necessary for that would create enough jobs to invite another 10 million over!

[Keino]

i think you have it backwards... the bureaucracy necessary for that would create enough jobs to invite another 10 million over!

You're probably right, but the mental picture of a bunch of MS-13 thugs drawing our nations congressional districts made me almost piss my pants....

[Spence]

Now thats an interesting proposition. What if Clinton would've run against Bush in 2000.........


I tend to like the idea of term limits for the Executive. I'd like to see them for the SCOTUS as well, instead of the lifetime appointment. Make it 20 years.Clinton would have stomped Bush in 2000. He'd have stomped Gore, too. Pretty much every poll indicated that.

Concerns about executive power are over-stated if you've got a Congress doing its job. If you've got a Congress, such as the current one, that doesn't do any oversight at all, then even two terms seems like too much.

[CNYSkinFan]

I do oppose what is going on but I fear it would get worse under term limits. I fear that no one rep would have the gravitas to actually stand up to special interest if they could just replace him in 8 years. Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Gun have money, power, and an entrenched lobbying effort on their side. Term limits would give them time as well.

[Keino]

Clinton would have stomped Bush in 2000. He'd have stomped Gore, too. Pretty much every poll indicated that.

Concerns about executive power are over-stated if you've got a Congress doing its job. If you've got a Congress, such as the current one, that doesn't do any oversight at all, then even two terms seems like too much.

Hell...one term was too many.

Which why people like us may be suffering, but alot voters deserve exactly the amount of dis-satisfaction they currently feel (If current polls are correct about Public opinion)

[CNYSkinFan]

Hell...one term was too many.

Which why people like us may be suffering, but alot voters deserve exactly the amount of dis-satisfaction they currently feel (If current polls are correct about Public opinion)
You mean everyone who voted for Bush because of two guys kissing?

[Keino]

You mean everyone who voted for Bush because of two guys kissing?

Don't forget the "Stay the bad course" crowd.....


and the "How dare he talk about Dick Cheney's daughter when asked his feelings on homosexuality" crowd....though I think thats the same crowd you just mentioned....

[PennSkinsFan]

Elections are term limits. The constitution states you have to meet the qualifications, such as being of age and having citizenship. Those are the qualifications. By determining that a person can no longer run because they have already served so many years to me is discrimination against that individual because the qualifications are already spelled out. Voters ARE the term limits. We just had 16 incumbents voted out in the State House primaries in Pennsylvania, including the Senate President and Senate Majoruity Leader, so YES, voters can limit terms if they wish. Each oen fo those 16 would tell you today, they were term limited, by the voter, which is what representative government is all about. People in a representative government are represented by thos ethey choose. That is what representation is all about. To me, as a voter myself, telling me i can not vote for some one is dictatoiral to me. As a voter, if a person is qualified and has qualified themselves through nomination processes, then I shoudl be able to vote for that person, it is my right in a free democratic society to vote my choice.

[Keino]

Silly PSF. Don't you know the Constitution can be changed. Whats that? Expressed powers you say? Don't go there.

[PennSkinsFan]

I'm not looking at term limits as a way to solve every problem I just get frustrated by career politicians and how impossible it is to dethrone them. I don't see how term limits would increase lobbyists influence-sure they get more opportunities to get their boy in there, but by that same token, their guy gets removed. Corruption probably wouldn't decrease it all that much either but I think it would shake up the good 'ole boy networks from time to time and that is a good thing. If constituents really like a Representative or Senator, they can elect a guy with similar values as Virginians did with their Governor.

Another benefit of term limits is that it promotes diversity, and not just racial diversity. Diversity of ideas.

I would be curious to see how many terms the most corrupt of the Reps have served. Jefferson is not exactly a rookie, so how many of these stunts did he pull off before he got caught? Would he have even been caught were it not for hurricane Katrina?

If your tired of career politicians, cast your vote against that individual, but I don't think my right to vote for that individual should be restricted if I truly believe that person has done a good job and has represented me effectively. Why solving your 'carrer politician' issues, you restrict my choice and voice. Solution to your problem...get involved, organize people, runf or office yourself, volunteer. BUT, why take my right away just because you don't like certain politicans.

[RedskinsDave]

You mean everyone who voted for Bush because of two guys kissing?

I'm pretty sure it was the two guys hugging who won Bush the election.

http://technicalities.mu.nu/archives/kerry-edwards.jpg

[PennSkinsFan]

Silly PSF. Don't you know the Constitution can be changed. Whats that? Expressed powers you say? Don't go there.

Hey if you want to be a leading democracy and want to espouse freedom around the world, then don't restrict my political right sin my own country.

[PennSkinsFan]

I'm pretty sure it was the two guys hugging who won Bush the election.

http://technicalities.mu.nu/archives/kerry-edwards.jpg

or this one

http://www.islamonline.net/arabic/alhdth/2005/04/25/images/04.jpg

[Axegrinder]

Maybe they can work on making their terms more like jury duty.
They can start by working for $30/day with no perks.
I suppose that would turn into another job that Americans wouldn't want to do.

[Ibleedburgundy]

If your tired of career politicians, cast your vote against that individual, but I don't think my right to vote for that individual should be restricted if I truly believe that person has done a good job and has represented me effectively. Why solving your 'carrer politician' issues, you restrict my choice and voice. Solution to your problem...get involved, organize people, runf or office yourself, volunteer. BUT, why take my right away just because you don't like certain politicans.

You make a damn good case PSF. But since your case is built on a philosophical right to vote for whomever you choose, you ought to oppose term limits for President as well-which is something you never hear anyone calling for, especially with the guy we got right now in the White House.

As far as Democratic principles go, I find electoral college to be less democratic than term limits-the fact that a candidate can win the popular vote and lose the election.

[CNYSkinFan]

You make a damn good case PSF. But since your case is built on a philosophical right to vote for whomever you choose, you ought to oppose term limits for President as well-which is something you never hear anyone calling for, especially with the guy we got right now in the White House.

As far as Democratic principles go, I find electoral college to be less democratic than term limits-the fact that a candidate can win the popular vote and lose the election.
the electoral college is a whole other subject. It may surprise you to learn I am for the electoral college, otherwise candidates and campaigns would only be active in major population centers also until you can have one uniform voting machine and way for counting votes you can never truly have an accurate count of the popular vote, just an estimate.

[Ibleedburgundy]

the electoral college is a whole other subject. It may surprise you to learn I am for the electoral college, otherwise candidates and campaigns would only be active in major population centers also until you can have one uniform voting machine and way for counting votes you can never truly have an accurate count of the popular vote, just an estimate.

But in this day in age, don't you think we could have an accurate way of counting votes?

[CNYSkinFan]

But in this day in age, don't you think we could have an accurate way of counting votes?
We don't yet......I think it would take a major investment which we don't seem to want to do.

however theere are other problems with the elimination of the electoral college and that is the smaller states, the flyover states, will never see a primary or general election campaign event or visit to them. Bush would have stayed in Houston, San Antonio, and Miami churning out votes whil Kerry would have focused on Boston, NY City, and Los Angeles.

It's not a perfect system but having electoral wieght forces true national election. Even solid Blue states like NY had a say in at least the primaries, same with Texas.

[PennSkinsFan]

You make a damn good case PSF. But since your case is built on a philosophical right to vote for whomever you choose, you ought to oppose term limits for President as well-which is something you never hear anyone calling for, especially with the guy we got right now in the White House.

As far as Democratic principles go, I find electoral college to be less democratic than term limits-the fact that a candidate can win the popular vote and lose the election.

I do oppose Presidential term limits. I oppose all term limits. I and you are the term limits. Don't like the President...vote against him or her, organize people against him or her. Get involved. It is Democracy and as long as a person is qualified and wants to run, they should be permitted and my choice should be limited by those that may not like a certain 'career politicain' that I may happen to think does a great job. Remember, just because some people don't like this certain person because they have been there for a long time, does not mean all people dislike that person. I amy think the person does an outstanding job and then i should have the right to return them to office. After all, my 'career' is limited by whether my employer still thinks I am doing a good job. We are the employers and can fire our servants anytime. Term limits are excuses for lazy voters who want to make a change but don't want to work to make the change.