• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Term Limits for Parties - Would you Support It?

Mustachio

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
5,395
Reaction score
2,782
Location
Minneapolis
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I don't think this requires a poll because it's a theoretical question.

A) It would require a constitutional amendment
B) It may in theory be unconstitutional itself
C) Party affiliation and definition is liquid (Romney, Whigs, Libertarians, etc.)

But what about a system where where no party, represented solely by our President, can hold office for more than 8 years? This would do two enormous things and solve a number of other issues we face. There would be no more "the system is rigged BS." Democrats and Republicans would get to vote for candidates on the other side of the aisle, thus every single president we have would be more representative of the majority of Americans than is the case now.

Most importantly, there is no doubt whatsoever that it would reduce the divisiveness in American politics today. I don't think that anybody thought things would get as black and white as they are now. The number of posters here who agree with every single thing that Obama has done or every single thing that W Bush did is absurd. It sounds like overkill, but I honestly think that the days of our representative democracy are numbered with the way things are going now.

:peace
 
I don't think this requires a poll because it's a theoretical question.

A) It would require a constitutional amendment
B) It may in theory be unconstitutional itself
C) Party affiliation and definition is liquid (Romney, Whigs, Libertarians, etc.)

But what about a system where where no party, represented solely by our President, can hold office for more than 8 years? This would do two enormous things and solve a number of other issues we face. There would be no more "the system is rigged BS." Democrats and Republicans would get to vote for candidates on the other side of the aisle, thus every single president we have would be more representative of the majority of Americans than is the case now.

Most importantly, there is no doubt whatsoever that it would reduce the divisiveness in American politics today. I don't think that anybody thought things would get as black and white as they are now. The number of posters here who agree with every single thing that Obama has done or every single thing that W Bush did is absurd. It sounds like overkill, but I honestly think that the days of our representative democracy are numbered with the way things are going now.

:peace

As to your first point, wouldn't it make more sense to restrict by beliefs and ethnicity? We just had a Black Somethingorother. Next a White Christian Man. Let demand say a Gay Budist Muslim next? That would really give the old democracy a new perspective. Very Progressive, don't you think?
As to number two, what about an Atheist Anarchist Theocracy to replace boring old representative democracy? Give the thing some New Century twing!

;)
 
I don't think this requires a poll because it's a theoretical question.

A) It would require a constitutional amendment
B) It may in theory be unconstitutional itself
C) Party affiliation and definition is liquid (Romney, Whigs, Libertarians, etc.)

But what about a system where where no party, represented solely by our President, can hold office for more than 8 years? This would do two enormous things and solve a number of other issues we face. There would be no more "the system is rigged BS." Democrats and Republicans would get to vote for candidates on the other side of the aisle, thus every single president we have would be more representative of the majority of Americans than is the case now.

Most importantly, there is no doubt whatsoever that it would reduce the divisiveness in American politics today. I don't think that anybody thought things would get as black and white as they are now. The number of posters here who agree with every single thing that Obama has done or every single thing that W Bush did is absurd. It sounds like overkill, but I honestly think that the days of our representative democracy are numbered with the way things are going now.

:peace

No I would not support it.It would encourage politicians to switch party affiliation in order get around the rules. The parties would get lazy and just run anybody because they won't have to worry about beating the party since it would be their turn in office. We also have a bunch of different third parties that would want their turn as president even though they may not have a significant portion of the population's support.

If anything we need ban open primaries and party switching before and during while a primary is going on in order to prevent party raiding.
 
I don’t see this working in practice. You’d just end up with one official candidate from the party not in office and one “independent” who just happens to be supported by most people in the party that is.
 
I don't think this requires a poll because it's a theoretical question.

A) It would require a constitutional amendment
B) It may in theory be unconstitutional itself
C) Party affiliation and definition is liquid (Romney, Whigs, Libertarians, etc.)

But what about a system where where no party, represented solely by our President, can hold office for more than 8 years? This would do two enormous things and solve a number of other issues we face. There would be no more "the system is rigged BS." Democrats and Republicans would get to vote for candidates on the other side of the aisle, thus every single president we have would be more representative of the majority of Americans than is the case now.

Most importantly, there is no doubt whatsoever that it would reduce the divisiveness in American politics today. I don't think that anybody thought things would get as black and white as they are now. The number of posters here who agree with every single thing that Obama has done or every single thing that W Bush did is absurd. It sounds like overkill, but I honestly think that the days of our representative democracy are numbered with the way things are going now.

:peace

No thanks. I would support a Constitutional Amendment to ban a politician from being a part of a party though. Which believe it or not was bandied about not long after the Constitution and BoR's was written. But it was found to be unconstitutional due to the 1st Amendment and peoples right to association. It was suggested as a law then though. A Constitutional Amendment would fix that.

By the by...a Constitutional Amendment would not, cannot, be found unconstitutional because it becomes a part of the Constitution. That is why you saw many states trying to amend their respective State Constitutions when trying to ban SSM instead of just trying to make it a law. Because there were parts of their respective Constitutions that would have made such a law unconstitutional on a state level. The reason that those failed though is because the federal Constitution over-rides the State Constitutions.
 
I would rather get rid of primaries altogether and have one large open general election. Yes, that would be a lot of candidates but couple it with instant runoff and I think it would work great.
 
I would rather get rid of primaries altogether and have one large open general election. Yes, that would be a lot of candidates but couple it with instant runoff and I think it would work great.

I completely agree. I know that Ireland uses this system and I've no doubt that other countries do it as well. I'd have to do some research but I have no recollection of any issues with instant-runoff for the Irish.

As to your first point, wouldn't it make more sense to restrict by beliefs and ethnicity? We just had a Black Somethingorother. Next a White Christian Man. Let demand say a Gay Budist Muslim next? That would really give the old democracy a new perspective. Very Progressive, don't you think?
As to number two, what about an Atheist Anarchist Theocracy to replace boring old representative democracy? Give the thing some New Century twing!
;)

Are you being tongue in cheek? Because, like I said, this is a theoretical question - it wouldn't work for the reasons I mentioned and others brought up some good points. But portraying a system that prevents the perversion of power like we saw with the Democrats in the 90s and the Republicans in the 2000s would be great. Under such a system, you wouldn't do anything that you know would be undone by your successor. That would drastically cut wasted time and policy initiatives and both would lead to productive and practical governing.

Last, I really do think our system needs to be altered or it's going to end. If elections become our favorite new reality television show, we are witnessing the beginning of idiocracy. We already are in fact.
 
It is a double-edged sword. It will eliminate some bad baggage, but it will eliminate some good baggage.

It is hard to say whether the country would benefit from term limits or not in a positive way. I do think it would have a negative affect as there will be a mad dash toward the end of a Congressman's term to start granting favors to private industry to secure a career after being forced out of office.

It will never happen as it will take a constitutional amendment and as divided as the country is it will never happen, and there would be no motivation by Congress to limit their careers.

The Article I, Section 2 and Section 3 of the Constitution sets terms with no limits, so that would have to be amended. It shot down with U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). Even though this regarded the states, the constitutional principle is the same.
 
I completely agree. I know that Ireland uses this system and I've no doubt that other countries do it as well. I'd have to do some research but I have no recollection of any issues with instant-runoff for the Irish.



Are you being tongue in cheek? Because, like I said, this is a theoretical question - it wouldn't work for the reasons I mentioned and others brought up some good points. But portraying a system that prevents the perversion of power like we saw with the Democrats in the 90s and the Republicans in the 2000s would be great. Under such a system, you wouldn't do anything that you know would be undone by your successor. That would drastically cut wasted time and policy initiatives and both would lead to productive and practical governing.

Last, I really do think our system needs to be altered or it's going to end. If elections become our favorite new reality television show, we are witnessing the beginning of idiocracy. We already are in fact.

We are trying to make believe life is a reality tv show.
 
Silly idea is silly..
 
No, it's up to the people to stop electing idiots. I would love to see Mark Amodei primary'd out here in Northern Nevada but I can't think of anyone who could do it.
 
I don't think this requires a poll because it's a theoretical question.

A) It would require a constitutional amendment
B) It may in theory be unconstitutional itself
C) Party affiliation and definition is liquid (Romney, Whigs, Libertarians, etc.)

But what about a system where where no party, represented solely by our President, can hold office for more than 8 years? This would do two enormous things and solve a number of other issues we face. There would be no more "the system is rigged BS." Democrats and Republicans would get to vote for candidates on the other side of the aisle, thus every single president we have would be more representative of the majority of Americans than is the case now.

Most importantly, there is no doubt whatsoever that it would reduce the divisiveness in American politics today. I don't think that anybody thought things would get as black and white as they are now. The number of posters here who agree with every single thing that Obama has done or every single thing that W Bush did is absurd. It sounds like overkill, but I honestly think that the days of our representative democracy are numbered with the way things are going now.

:peace

I fail to find not much to worry about. Obama (D) got his term limit. Not all with a majority in Congress. Prior to that Bush (R) Same situation. Clinton (D) - Mixed Congress.

What is it I'm missing?
 
I fail to find not much to worry about. Obama (D) got his term limit. Not all with a majority in Congress. Prior to that Bush (R) Same situation. Clinton (D) - Mixed Congress.

What is it I'm missing?

It's a thought experiment to begin with. Still, you're missing everything I said in the OP. We are more divisive than ever, it's getting worse, it's getting violent, and Trump found a way to capitalize on that. Unless your head is in the sand, Trump knew that if you can motivate people to vote, you win. And what's motivating people right now is anger and hatred towards "the other side," immigrants, and an entire religion that occupies a massive part of the world. I just don't think the way we elect people works. I wish Trump the best, but as to his campaign? It will be emulated and I think we do need to act in advance in order to avoid something far more odious than a rich misogynist who would lie about anything to get elected.
 
No, it's up to the people to stop electing idiots. I would love to see Mark Amodei primary'd out here in Northern Nevada but I can't think of anyone who could do it.

That's fair but idiocy and having idiots in office appears to be reciprocal. We hate congress but we're the ones who vote for our congressmen and keep them there for decades on end. In what world does that make sense?
 
It's a thought experiment to begin with. Still, you're missing everything I said in the OP. We are more divisive than ever, it's getting worse, it's getting violent, and Trump found a way to capitalize on that. Unless your head is in the sand, Trump knew that if you can motivate people to vote, you win. And what's motivating people right now is anger and hatred towards "the other side," immigrants, and an entire religion that occupies a massive part of the world. I just don't think the way we elect people works. I wish Trump the best, but as to his campaign? It will be emulated and I think we do need to act in advance in order to avoid something far more odious than a rich misogynist who would lie about anything to get elected.

What I see is a non problem. Or at least a self correcting problem. We've been D R D R for years.

I agree we are now more divided than any in recent history, but the people have spoken and
corrected the problem. What s it you hope to gain?

I understand where you are coming from. You want to rule out any possibility that the electorate could elect back to back Republicans. Therefore insuring a 1 candidate Democrat win. The correct course of action to make that happen is to look at the loss, figure out why you lost, and you might have a shot.
 
What I see is a non problem. Or at least a self correcting problem. We've been D R D R for years.

I agree we are now more divided than any in recent history, but the people have spoken and
corrected the problem. What s it you hope to gain?

I understand where you are coming from. You want to rule out any possibility that the electorate could elect back to back Republicans. Therefore insuring a 1 candidate Democrat win. The correct course of action to make that happen is to look at the loss, figure out why you lost, and you might have a shot.

We have corrected the problem by voting for Trump? Trump's going to be president so now we'll all be happy? Is that a weird joke?

Wow you either didn't read the OP or you think I'm lying. I'm not going to get off topic too much, but this is a thought experiment about reducing the divisiveness in the country and I am including Democrats in this. I am not a Democrat, I don't protest or riot - I'm a liberal but a middle of the road liberal who votes based on candidates and policy - not affiliation.

The idea was that if every American chose between two Republicans or two Democrats rather than one extreme or the other, we'd be better represented (literally, the POTUS would be far more representative of the electorate). There are issues in it, but my concern is, as I said before, that elections are going to be the new Duck Dynasty. Something that just makes us all dumber.
 
Back
Top Bottom