• 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!

Should Term Limits be implemented for Congress?

Should Term Limits be implemented for Congress?

  • Yes

    Votes: 42 57.5%
  • No

    Votes: 25 34.2%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 8.2%

  • Total voters
    73
And as I'm having a discussion elsewhere, the Constitutional Amendment system is really unworkable today. It worked when people cared about what was best for the country, it doesn't work when the country is ideologically divided as it is today.
In today's political climate, it would take a virtual miracle to get an amendment of any topic passed.
 
Representatives, especially, are under pressure to raise money constantly. With only two-year terms, they have to start raising for the next election pretty much the day they're sworn in.
 
Representatives, especially, are under pressure to raise money constantly. With only two-year terms, they have to start raising for the next election pretty much the day they're sworn in.

Aristotle said that, as in all things in nature, there is a proper size for a republic. When one's representative has no idea who you are and you have no idea who he is without him spending millions on mass media, it is a sure sign that the polity has grown beyond it's proper size and should be split into smaller pieces. If you haven't, sometime in your life, had a beer with your representative, then the granularity of representation is too coarse.
 
And as I'm having a discussion elsewhere, the Constitutional Amendment system is really unworkable today. It worked when people cared about what was best for the country, it doesn't work when the country is ideologically divided as it is today.

My first impulse is to say the amendment process is as valid as ever. But then I thought a bit and you might be right. The last amendment, the 27th ratified by the states had sat around waiting for three fourths of the states to ratified since 1789. So the last amendment recently introduced and passed was the 26th back in 1971. All it did was lower the voting age from 21 to 18. Not a very controversial one. So in reality it has been 42 years since any amendment has been proposed, passed congress and had the states ratify it.

As to passing an amendment, as long as the money favors one party or the other, there is no way to get the 2/3rds vote requirement in congress. Each party is looking for any advantage they can get, fairness does not enter the equation.

Then there is the Constitutional Convention which 2/3rds of the states need to call for. It is here where congress might fall in line. By that I mean once congress sees about half the states calling for a Constitutional Convention, they would probably address the speech is money issue and perhaps gain federal funding of elections as those in congress would be so afraid of a total revamp of the Constitution that a Convention could bring.
 
My first impulse is to say the amendment process is as valid as ever. But then I thought a bit and you might be right. The last amendment, the 27th ratified by the states had sat around waiting for three fourths of the states to ratified since 1789. So the last amendment recently introduced and passed was the 26th back in 1971. All it did was lower the voting age from 21 to 18. Not a very controversial one. So in reality it has been 42 years since any amendment has been proposed, passed congress and had the states ratify it.

As to passing an amendment, as long as the money favors one party or the other, there is no way to get the 2/3rds vote requirement in congress. Each party is looking for any advantage they can get, fairness does not enter the equation.

Then there is the Constitutional Convention which 2/3rds of the states need to call for. It is here where congress might fall in line. By that I mean once congress sees about half the states calling for a Constitutional Convention, they would probably address the speech is money issue and perhaps gain federal funding of elections as those in congress would be so afraid of a total revamp of the Constitution that a Convention could bring.
Good post.

A Constitutional Convention would be the worst thing that could happen, IMO. EVERYTHING... bar none... would be on the table, and many of our favored rights most likely wouldn't survive.
 
Then we read that both BHO and Romney each spent $ ONE BILLION DOLLARS on what has become nothing more than a popularity contest! With over 50 million people on foodstamps, and millions of others on housing assistance and other government help, it's enough to make one gag! What has happened to this Country that this isn't questioned? :thumbdown: Our Government is supposed to be for the people...not those running for office in DC!

And the Dems now want more tax money to spend from people who are being squeezed to death already, not to mention the real costs of Obamacare which aren't fully known yet, but which seem to be rising everytime a new cost report is issued, contrary to promises. C'mon....time to join the real world the rest of us live in, and cut the damn spending! And I mean real spending, not one or two percent of projected future spending! :bs:

Yes, that is 2 billion alone on the presidential race. But this money is other peoples money, not taxpayers money that would go to help the poor. yet if these donors gave it to the poor instead of the presidential campaign, the poor would definitely be better off.

In 2008 according to ABC News, BHO spent 750 million to McCain's 368 million. But in a year when the majority of the people were just sick and tired of Republican rule, I don't think that spread made that much of a difference. In other words if each candidate spent only 300 million a piece, the results would have been much the same. If Romney and Obama only spent 300 million each last year, I wouldn't expect the numbers to change much. So I can only conclude that money spent over a certain amount is wasted. The 300 million seems to be close to that ball park figure. In other words, each vote Romney and Obama received, the cost was $20.00 per vote. Compare that to Johnson who received 1.2 million votes while spending around 2 million. Each vote he received cost him only $1.70 each.

Now both candidates received most of their money from Wall Street, corporations, special interests, lobbyist, super pacs, and other organizations wanting something from government. None of these gave any money just as their civic duty, they gave expecting something in return. Favorable legislation, tax breaks, subsidies, some for their cash. In simple English, these people bought our elected officials.
 
Good post.

A Constitutional Convention would be the worst thing that could happen, IMO. EVERYTHING... bar none... would be on the table, and many of our favored rights most likely wouldn't survive.

Exactly, I feel the same way. The congress and the political parties know this too. This is why a congress who would be very much opposed to a constitutional amendment dealing with election reform and the money is speech SCOTUS ruling, would all of a sudden change their minds and quickly approve the amendment. Congress knows a convention could change everything.
 
Yes, that is 2 billion alone on the presidential race. But this money is other peoples money, not taxpayers money that would go to help the poor. yet if these donors gave it to the poor instead of the presidential campaign, the poor would definitely be better off.

In 2008 according to ABC News, BHO spent 750 million to McCain's 368 million. But in a year when the majority of the people were just sick and tired of Republican rule, I don't think that spread made that much of a difference. In other words if each candidate spent only 300 million a piece, the results would have been much the same. If Romney and Obama only spent 300 million each last year, I wouldn't expect the numbers to change much. So I can only conclude that money spent over a certain amount is wasted. The 300 million seems to be close to that ball park figure. In other words, each vote Romney and Obama received, the cost was $20.00 per vote. Compare that to Johnson who received 1.2 million votes while spending around 2 million. Each vote he received cost him only $1.70 each.

Now both candidates received most of their money from Wall Street, corporations, special interests, lobbyist, super pacs, and other organizations wanting something from government. None of these gave any money just as their civic duty, they gave expecting something in return. Favorable legislation, tax breaks, subsidies, some for their cash. In simple English, these people bought our elected officials.

They say that "everyone has their price." Why can't we elect someone who is not so pricey? Or are they too busy earning a living the old-fashioned way...you know--by working? :thumbs:
 
no need
we have the right every two/six years to shake things up
and we do elect those politicians we deserve

I disagree. Too often people vote for legislators based moreso on name recognition than the candidate's actual legislative record. This applies to legislators at both the state and federal levels. While I would contend it's the voters' fault for not educating themselves on the candidate's legilative history or where they stand on the issues, it happens more often than people care to think.
 
They say that "everyone has their price." Why can't we elect someone who is not so pricey? Or are they too busy earning a living the old-fashioned way...you know--by working? :thumbs:

All I can say is that it is the system and neither party wants to change it.
 
All I can say is that it is the system and neither party wants to change it.

Sad, but true.

I wonder what elections cost in other developed countries?

Well, time for me to call it a day.

G'nite, Pero, and all others, too. Be well.
 
In today's political climate, it would take a virtual miracle to get an amendment of any topic passed.

Exactly, yet you still have people saying "pass an amendment to change how you pass amendments!" Some people are not clear on the problem.
 
True and that is why it is called Representative Government. You as a single has a say, but it is the majority that decides who stays or doesn't.

Again, the power lies with the majority. I only have power if I agree with the majority.
 
Again, the power lies with the majority. I only have power if I agree with the majority.
As a matter of practical application there has to be a line somewhere. Where would you draw the line so that you could still feel a legitimate process when you don't get your way?
 
The most obvious flaw in the system is the Representative's term of but two years.
This must be changed to four years.
Then we need reform, true absolute reform in the campaigns and campaign finance.
In other words - no more big money..
But, NO , at this point in time, to term limits..
 
Sad, but true.

I wonder what elections cost in other developed countries?

Well, time for me to call it a day.

G'nite, Pero, and all others, too. Be well.

That, sir, is a most interesting question (election cost)..
IMO, we have an incredible amount of waste here...
I'd prefer to see a 20 day campaign time, with maybe 3 hours of TV time, giving all a chance to be informed...
Something like that....
 
There should be no term limits. We have never had term limits though we have to and were perfectly fine. The voters decide if they don't like your government they will just vote you and your members out like they did with Mulroney.

No, the voters don't.

What decides is how state legislatures gerrymander House districts in their states.

We also need to get rid of the single-member district system for the House seats and instead implement a party proportional system. That will also help get 3rd party candidates elected to Congress.

Cannot agree with samssmart's solution but he is correct unlike Canada in the US there is only two Parties at the Fed Level and they are frozen in. The solution would be getting third Parties by requiring states to allow more than just the two. We would not even have the discussion about term limits if we would have the ablity to vote for third Parties and of course eventuly retiring old parties when their time was done.
 
Gotcha. To be real though, amending the Constitution as we know is something modern America has difficulty living up to. Heck, the last time it was tried was the ERA in 72. It passed both houses in Congress but stalled in the final ratification by the states and expired in 82 never having made the bar.

It was badly worded. Good thing it did not pass. BTW the Admendment to limit Congress' ability to vote up their salary was passed.
 
They say that "everyone has their price." Why can't we elect someone who is not so pricey? Or are they too busy earning a living the old-fashioned way...you know--by working? :thumbs:
I think that it is far easier, far less "work" to convince an engine to run properly than it is to change the mind of a human..
Its less "work" to move a ton of stone than to convince a man, who really cares not, to vote for a certain individual..
So - so much for "work".
 
Yes, but for long terms. At least twelve years for both, 2 Senate/6 House, but 3 Senate and 8 House would be better.

We have term limits in KC and, IMO, our 2x 4-year terms are a little short. It takes time to actually figure out how things work and it's hard to make sound decisions on complex issues when you're flailing around trying to learn the system. On the other hand, in our unlimited system the Council seemed to get in a rut and new ideas were rare. (We should switch to 3x 4-years but that hasn't happened, yet.) So, yes, based on my experience with city politics, I think we should have limits - but not short ones. Give the new people time to adjust and learn then some years to really get things done - we hope!
 
a change to our electoral system, adopting preferential voting rather than first past the post, would be a better fix than term limits
Under ‘full’ preferential voting each candidate must be given a preference by the voter. First, all the number ‘1’ votes are counted for each candidate. If a candidate gets more than 50 per cent (an absolute majority, 50 per cent plus one) of the formal first preference votes, the candidate is immediately elected. If no candidate has an absolute majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is excluded. These votes are then transferred to the other candidates according to the second preferences shown by voters on the ballot papers. If still no candidate has an absolute majority, again the remaining candidate with the fewest votes is excluded and these votes are transferred. This process will continue until one candidate has more than half the total votes cast and is declared elected.
Our electoral system - About Australia - Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
 
As a matter of practical application there has to be a line somewhere. Where would you draw the line so that you could still feel a legitimate process when you don't get your way?

I don't have a problem with the system. I have a problem with people when they say that every vote counts though...
 
no need
we have the right every two/six years to shake things up
and we do elect those politicians we deserve

But is this really true?

I recently read a piece (will look for it again) that described how our current system really isnt in the hands of the voter but instead the real power resides in the big two establishments (GOP, Democratic party) which influence elections as much as the people by largely determining who will gain significant funding and public exposure. How many times have you heard about a potential candidate wanting to run against another member of the same party being asked, bullied, or bribed NOT to run? I have seen several example over the years. How many potential candidates who go against the powers actually ever get elected?, not many. It seems you either play by the established power's rules or have little chance of promoting your political career.
 
But is this really true?

I recently read a piece (will look for it again) that described how our current system really isnt in the hands of the voter but instead the real power resides in the big two establishments (GOP, Democratic party) which influence elections as much as the people by largely determining who will gain significant funding and public exposure. How many times have you heard about a potential candidate wanting to run against another member of the same party being asked, bullied, or bribed NOT to run? I have seen several example over the years. How many potential candidates who go against the powers actually ever get elected?, not many. It seems you either play by the established power's rules or have little chance of promoting your political career.

I'll bet that's somewhat true. If you really think about, things don't really change much from one president to the next, at least not in recent times.
 
I'll bet that's somewhat true. If you really think about, things don't really change much from one president to the next, at least not in recent times.

the bureaucratic inertia tends to cause that
 
Back
Top Bottom