Midterm elections are a major problem with American democracy

[Kreton]

Every 4 years we have a major presidential election. This is always such a major event that it encourages many people to go out and vote. The winning presidential candidate also helps Congressional and Senate candidates to get elected. Obama won and had a Senate and House majority. Turmp won and had a Senate and House majority.

Then two years later we have some midterm elections. The party that lost the presidential election is usually more motivated to vote in the midterms because they're unhappy about the results of the presidential election. Then the president loses one chamber and can't get anything passed.

This is a dumb system. Why can't Congressional and Senate terms be 4 years and elections happen every 4 years? Congressional terms are way too short at just 2 years. It means they spend all their time campaigning.

We have a system designed for gridlock.

To me it is better that way. In fact, I'd like to see it happen more frequently than it does. I think the general population reacting to the president and congress is a great thing.

 

[Kreton]

The midterm turnout is not the same as the turnout we have for presidential elections. The lower turnout at midterms means the election results don't truly represent the will of the people.

You're right that this means that it takes 4 years before voters can voice an opinion. But that could be addressed with recall elections. And governments officials are forced to resign all the time due to protests.

It doesn't make sense to have elected officials who are in office only because of low voter turnout. Moreover, the current situation is an ineffective government. Our system doesn't work.

The will of the people who don't being ignored is their choice. There is 0 legitimate reasons that a person who should be able to vote cannot vote.

 

[Deuce]

Our founders made it that way on purpose. Its to slow down any chance of something dramatic happening to our democratic republic.

It has left us crippled and unable to respond to a fast-paced world. America is suffering for it today.

 

[Carleen]

Every 4 years we have a major presidential election. This is always such a major event that it encourages many people to go out and vote. The winning presidential candidate also helps Congressional and Senate candidates to get elected. Obama won and had a Senate and House majority. Turmp won and had a Senate and House majority.

Then two years later we have some midterm elections. The party that lost the presidential election is usually more motivated to vote in the midterms because they're unhappy about the results of the presidential election. Then the president loses one chamber and can't get anything passed.

This is a dumb system. Why can't Congressional and Senate terms be 4 years and elections happen every 4 years? Congressional terms are way too short at just 2 years. It means they spend all their time campaigning.

We have a system designed for gridlock.

How about two years for the senate too.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Now you are determining that the midterm turn out means their voice, and will to participate more, somehow means less.

You cannot force voter turn out even if your argument is to force voter marginalization.

Again, all you are arguing for is further removal of the voter just because they tend to get upset with the results from the last term of Congress.

Having to run for reelection every 2 years means that Congressmen are always in campaign mode. Two year terms don't make much sense.

Both Obama and Clinton lost the midterms but both won reelection. Why is that? Their supporters didn't show up to the midterms.

You're arguing an ideal and I'm arguing about a practical problem. A president gets elected then 2 years later he loses the midterms and can't govern. Not because the people necessarily oppose his policies but because his opponents are more motivated to vote in elections that most people ignore.

The end result will be greater and greater voter apathy.

I'm pragmatically arguing for a solution to the gradual descent into authoritarianism. No solution is perfect. You have valid points. But what's your solution to this growing problem of government dysfunction?

Let's say Andrew Yang wins. His supporters are very excited about this Universal Basic Income. Guess what? It will never happen unless the stars line up and he wins the House and Senate on election day. At some points, voters realize these are all empty promises. And yet the voters will never accept their own role in the problem.

Instead of just blaming the lazy voter we need to make it easier for them to express their will.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

How about two years for the senate too.

Why? So they can spend all their time campaigning and raising money?

We already know money is a big issue in elections. When you force Congressmen to always be campaigning it makes them very vulnerable to corruption because they need more money for more elections.

 

[Carleen]

Why? So they can spend all their time campaigning and raising money?

We already know money is a big issue in elections. When you force Congressmen to always be campaigning it makes them very vulnerable to corruption because they need more money for more elections.

No matter how many years they are always campaigning including the president. The biggest mistake made recently was the Supreme Court ruling.

 

[Cardinal]

Every 4 years we have a major presidential election. This is always such a major event that it encourages many people to go out and vote. The winning presidential candidate also helps Congressional and Senate candidates to get elected. Obama won and had a Senate and House majority. Turmp won and had a Senate and House majority.

Then two years later we have some midterm elections. The party that lost the presidential election is usually more motivated to vote in the midterms because they're unhappy about the results of the presidential election. Then the president loses one chamber and can't get anything passed.

This is a dumb system. Why can't Congressional and Senate terms be 4 years and elections happen every 4 years? Congressional terms are way too short at just 2 years. It means they spend all their time campaigning.

We have a system designed for gridlock.

Imagine a full Trump administration with total Republican control of both the Senate and the House. That would have sucked.

The problem with our democracy is the Electoral College and the dismantling of voter protection laws.

 

[AGENT J]

Every 4 years we have a major presidential election. This is always such a major event that it encourages many people to go out and vote. The winning presidential candidate also helps Congressional and Senate candidates to get elected. Obama won and had a Senate and House majority. Turmp won and had a Senate and House majority.

Then two years later we have some midterm elections. The party that lost the presidential election is usually more motivated to vote in the midterms because they're unhappy about the results of the presidential election. Then the president loses one chamber and can't get anything passed.

This is a dumb system. Why can't Congressional and Senate terms be 4 years and elections happen every 4 years? Congressional terms are way too short at just 2 years. It means they spend all their time campaigning.

We have a system designed for gridlock.

Actually the system is perfect in that regard

the problem is with individual politicians there was a time when a good idea was a good idea now to many nutters only think its a good idea if they had it or their "team" had it

I have no problem with looking at terms for congress but they should still absolutely come in between presidential terms without a doubt! Its one of the checks and balances that works perfectly.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Imagine a full Trump administration with total Republican control of both the Senate and the House. That would have sucked.
2.) The problem with our democracy is the Electoral College and the dismantling of voter protection laws.

1.) i bet we would be in a war and or he would have been assassinated by now
2.) those are both issues i agree

 

[Harshaw]

It is a failure in the Westminster system for a reason. If a government cannot pass important legislation clearly that government has lost the confidence of their ability to govern.

You keep confusing a bulwark against passing hasty or ill-advised legislation with an inability to pass "important" legislation.

 

[Harshaw]

Imagine a full Trump administration with total Republican control of both the Senate and the House. That would have sucked.

Don't have to imagine it. 2017-2018.

As far as I know, neither the country nor the world ended.

 

[Cardinal]

1.) i bet we would be in a war and or he would have been assassinated by now
2.) those are both issues i agree

Believe it or not, I disagree with the first point. He's gone surprisingly out of his way to avoid war. Granted, those efforts have been stupid and clumsy, but he has displayed an odd propensity for not getting into armed conflicts. It's actually why he hated Bolton.

 

[AGENT J]

Believe it or not, I disagree with the first point. He's gone surprisingly out of his way to avoid war. Granted, those efforts have been stupid and clumsy, but he has displayed an odd propensity for not getting into armed conflicts. It's actually why he hated Bolton.

no no no you misunderstand. . i dont think he would "go to war" . . i think somebody would have forced our hand by now giving us no choice . . because of all the stupid things our country may have done

you are right though . .maybe whatever some country or countries dealt us he would just take it on the chin but id find that hard to believe

 

[Cardinal]

no no no you misunderstand. . i dont think he would "go to war" . . i think somebody would have forced our hand by now giving us no choice . . because of all the stupid things our country may have done

you are right though . .maybe whatever some country or countries dealt us he would just take it on the chin but id find that hard to believe

I just listened to a surprising interview with Natasha Bertrand. She spoke to someone who recently left the White House, and he said that Trump is obsessed with avoiding the use of nuclear weapons. That may come as a surprise if you're thinking back to some of the things he's said in the past, like wondering why we don't use nuclear weapons against countries, or if it would be a good idea to nuke a hurricane.

Listening to that interview is literally the one thing I've heard about Trump that provided some measure of relief.

 

[Lisa]

One simple fix...mandatory and free online voting.

Online voting isn't secure enough from hacking, even with blockchain technology. Voting should be via mail-in ballots with a pre-paid return envelope.

 

[AGENT J]

I just listened to a surprising interview with Natasha Bertrand. She spoke to someone who recently left the White House, and he said that Trump is obsessed with avoiding the use of nuclear weapons. That may come as a surprise if you're thinking back to some of the things he's said in the past, like wondering why we don't use nuclear weapons against countries, or if it would be a good idea to nuke a hurricane.

Listening to that interview is literally the one thing I've heard about Trump that provided some measure of relief.

to be honest im not really surprised at anything with him. He is VERY much like many people his age in a technology world that has no clue about anything outside his bubble (which is government, politics, technology, foreign affairs etc) and can easily be swayed 100% in the opposite direction or simply just finds the right information to feed his feelings on something.

its really the only thing that makes sense

i do agree with you that that is a HUGE relief.

 

[Cardinal]

One simple fix...mandatory and free online voting.

Many years ago a much younger and more naive Cardinal believed in online voting. Having followed hacking and internet security, however, I now appreciate that that idea is the worst. Think of all the major companies that have been hacked in the past ten years. Now imagine the things getting hacked are American voting machines.

 

[3leftsdoo]

The problem with a piece of rotten fruit is that it's rotten.

That one portion may be more or less rotten than another is irrelevant.

 

[Perotista]

Every 4 years we have a major presidential election. This is always such a major event that it encourages many people to go out and vote. The winning presidential candidate also helps Congressional and Senate candidates to get elected. Obama won and had a Senate and House majority. Turmp won and had a Senate and House majority.

Then two years later we have some midterm elections. The party that lost the presidential election is usually more motivated to vote in the midterms because they're unhappy about the results of the presidential election. Then the president loses one chamber and can't get anything passed.

This is a dumb system. Why can't Congressional and Senate terms be 4 years and elections happen every 4 years? Congressional terms are way too short at just 2 years. It means they spend all their time campaigning.

We have a system designed for gridlock.

I'd say the first midterm election is a way for the people to voice their objections when they think a president and congress controlled by the same party has gone too far. Sure Trump lost the house in his first midterm as did Obama. But G.W. Bush and the Republican maintained control of both chambers of congress in his first midterm. Bill Clinton lost both the House and the Senate in his first midterm. G.H.W. Bush and the Republicans never had control of either chamber. Reagan and the Republicans didn't have control of the house when he was elected, but Reagan brought the GOP control of the senate which the Republican maintained in Ronnie's first midterm.

Jimmy Carter maintained control of both chambers in his first midterm. Nixon and the Republican never had control of either chambers and thus didn't lose either one in his first midterm. LBJ and the Democrats had control of both chambers and didn't lose either one, JFK also. The Democrats controlled both chambers and maintained control of both in JFK's first midterm.

The midterms are a way for the people to voice their frustrations and anger at the president. Loss of the house can be tied directly to how the majority of Americans view the president. His approval rating.
Trump's approval was at 38% when he lost the house in 2018
Obama's approval was at 44% when he lost the house in 2010
G.W. Bush's approval was at 63% when he maintained control of the House in 2002
Bill Clinton's approval was at 41% when he lost the house in 1994
G.H.W. Bush and Reagan's approval doesn't matter as neither had control of the House of Representative.
Jimmy Carter approval was at 52% when he maintained control of the House.
Nixon never had control of the house and his approval rating is thus also irrelevant. I'll stop here.

But what we see is presidents who have an approval rating of below 50% or a disapproval rating higher then their approval lose the first midterm and the House. Those presidents whose approval rating is higher than their disapproval ratings, maintain control of the House.

The midterms give the people a way to show their objections and disapproval of the way any president is handling his job by giving the House to the opposite party. Or it is a way to show approval of the job a president is doing by letting him and his party keep control of the House.

Gridlock isn't always a bad thing. It can be a good thing. What gridlock does is make the president and his party go the compromise route, playing the game of give and take. To moderate policy and legislation, prevents the extremes. I love divided government.

 

[Lisa]

The problem with a piece of rotten fruit is that it's rotten.

That one portion may be more or less rotten than another is irrelevant.

What is your better idea? We can fix it with a few solutions.

1.)Get rid of private money in elections and lobbying plus repeal Citizens United.

2.)Limit the power of political parties.

3.)Get more people to vote by making it easier, faster and resistant to hacking. It should never take more than 10 minutes to cast a ballot. We can vote in person by instead of using computerized machines give everyone a clipboard with a paper ballot. The ballot is optically scanned offline and results downloaded to a secure thumb drive at the end of the night that is transferred to a central point for counting by a neutral 3rd party.

 

[3leftsdoo]

What is your better idea? We can fix it with a few solutions.

1.)Get rid of private money in elections and lobbying plus repeal Citizens United.

2.)Limit the power of political parties.

3.)Get more people to vote by making it easier, faster and resistant to hacking. It should never take more than 10 minutes to cast a ballot. We can vote in person by instead of using computerized machines give everyone a clipboard with a paper ballot. The ballot is optically scanned offline and results downloaded to a secure thumb drive at the end of the night that is transferred to a central point for counting by a neutral 3rd party.

1) Sounds great, won't happen.

2) Sounds great, won't happen.

3) Will happen if an incredibly complicated, insanely expensive pork barrel version incredibly vulnerable to hacks and other manipulation can be implemented.

Not that I'm cynical...

 

[Carjosse]

You keep confusing a bulwark against passing hasty or ill-advised legislation with an inability to pass "important" legislation.

It does prevent the passing of important legislation, namely budgets. How exactly does having mid-term elections prevent hasty or ill-advised legislation passing through?

 

[Harshaw]

It does prevent the passing of important legislation, namely budgets. How exactly does having mid-term elections prevent hasty or ill-advised legislation passing through?

Who said anything about mid-term elections?

You say it prevents "budgets" from being passed as though centuries of budgets weren't passed.

 

[Decypher]

Voting should be mandatory. Everyone’s always going on about the Bill of Rights. There should be a Bill of Responsibilities as well.

But one of the options should always be “none of the above”. If that option gets the most votes, every candidate is disqualified and the vote happens again with new candidates.