House Members Propose Longer Office Terms

[arcos]

House Members Propose Longer Office Terms

WASHINGTON - Two House lawmakers, frustrated by a system in which their colleagues go directly from election victories to raising cash for a new campaign, are proposing that terms of office in the House be doubled to four years.



Such a change would require a constitutional amendment, which Reps. Charles Stenholm, D-Texas, and Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., acknowledge would be difficult. Two-year terms were intrinsic to the Founding Fathers' concept of a House responsive to the will of the people.


James Madison and the other writers of the Constitution "would be appalled if they knew we never shut down our campaigns," Bartlett said.

<snip>

The two would amend Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution to create a 10-year election cycle. The first election of a decade, coinciding with the national census and the ensuing reapportionment, would be for two years. The next two elections would be for four-year terms.

<snip>

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&ncid=703&e=4&u=/ap/20030821/ap_on_go_co/house_terms

[rooboy]

1. Do congressmen only serve 2 year terms??

That would be considered ridiculously short where I come from...

[arcos]

3. yes they do...

and it is ridiculously short by my standards too, since my country has a 4 year system. However, in the US Senators serve 6 year terms, so that kind of makes up for the House.

[teryang]

2. Isn't our government unresponsive enough?

why bother having elections at all? This will never happen.

[arcos]

4. The real issue is gerrymandering...

Right now over 95% of House members are reelected over and over. That doesn't make any sense at all, since as the article says, the original idea was for the House to represent current public opinion.

[punpirate]

5. Gerrymandering doesn't guarantee continued election to office...

... but it helps.

The real problem is campaign funding, not the length of term. Truth is, if these two reps managed to get a Constitutional amendment through and passed by the states, it would simply mean that each rep would have four years to raise funds--no fundamental change at all--and many would simply proceed as they always have, spending most of their time pursuing campaign funding. As long as re-election depends so heavily on raising money, and especially money from corporations and fat cats, this proposal will change nothing.

And, were it to be tied to term limits, the situation in Washington would be similar to that in effect now in CA--the lobbyists would be writing the legislation to an even greater degree than they do now.

Cheers.

[arcos]

10. For real reform...

the US should look to the German system of election...

[diamondsoul]

17. Um, if they're being re-elected

I submit they obviously ARE representing current public opinion.

I personally think the House and Senate ought to serve 4 year terms, but I also think the elections for each should be staggered. Every two years I have to tell them YES I want to keep the same Rep! I hate it.

[Gman]

6. The problem is not the terms. The problem is campaign finance

extending terms will fix nothing. The House was intended to be in a constant state of turnover. Money makes turnover a non-issue.

[punpirate]

7. Exactly....

Changing term length loosely addresses a symptom, rather than a cause.

[Mel]

9. agreed

they can forget about extending their time. Two years was fine without planes, faxes, automobiles, ect. you get the idea.

The problem isn't the length of time it's how they've chosen to sell out and aren't working for the public good.

They've gotta lot of nerve to whine about a system they've either set up for theirselves or chosen not to do the right thing and continue taking the corporate monies.

Until they get the corporate needle out of their veins they will continue to have to raise more monies....haven't they heard 'capitalism' is about profit the bottom line they too are becoming slaves for 'crony capitalism' oh well at least they won't have to worry about their jobs being shipped overseas.

Maybe, they too will get a reduction in their benefits seeing as they gave most of the surplus to the top 2% there isn't going to be enough money for their insurance coverage, you think?

I say they too should suffer like the rest of the people if everyone doesn't have health care or a living wage neither should they. I say let them suck it up.

So, if they really don't like all the money they have to raise then they can change the system, the people want it, just ask Granny D heck the public whom they are suppose to work for supports it.

[terryg11]

8. I would support it the way the system is now

what's the point of having reps. when they are so preoccupied with reelection funds? yes, I would prefer that they get reelected on merit and how well they represented their people back home but unfortunately that's not the way it is. IF we could prohibit actively campaigning and fund raising until the year of reelection that might work.

[Mikimouse]

11. One term limit across the board...

Instead of extending the terms, I suggest that we limit all legislative terms to one; no opportunity to ever run again. This is not an original idea, it was suggested by Emile Durkheim roughly 100 years ago. With no chance of running twice, the issue of political networking becomes moot. Moreover, without the 'need' to raise funds for endless campaogns, those elected to public office would be able to focus on the issues that got them elected in the first place. Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchies does not hold in such a scenario (states that irrespective of the original purity of motive, when one becomes part of an oligarchy, the emphasis shifts to personal interest sooner or later-i.e.-reelection, remaining part of the oligarchy).

[terryg11]

13. obviously a very debatable solution

on the one hand it does seem like a good idea. You wouldn't be working for reelection or more power per se but your legacy-how would you be remembered in office. Could make office holders more transparent.But then again, that same ideal could hurt since little could get done with everyone fighting to get their own agenda done before they are gone. Does anywhere in the world hve this type of representation?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. Answer: Publicly funded elections.

Throw free TV in there for cost reduction.

[terryg11]

14. I've always liked this idea

That way money isn't as much of an issue, maybe not an issue at all

[AP]

15. Absolutely!

This is the solution.

[goobergunch]

16. I concur

the last thing we need is to extend political terms.

[Kolesar]

18. They can hold a Constitutional Convention and reinstitute slavery

and void the Bill of Rights (except the Second Amendment, of course).