I am liking the idea of a single term presidency...6 years

[SoCalDem]

If even a LOUSY president "can" be 're-elected' ...and the 2nd term is usually a disaster, why keep doing it?

Why not just have a single 6 year term...with perhaps a "re-elect provision" (with someone else's 6 yr term inbetween?...

There would be NO reason to waste money and time "campaigning", and no reason for him/her to NOT do their jobs..

We could also use a total re-vamping of the congress too.. I KNOW that TK is a good guy and Byrd is too, BUT, our so-called leaders are way too comfy in their positions and are ripe for the picking (lobbyists) because they HAVE to keep raising money...

The staff people do most of the heavy lifting anyway, and they seem to get amnesia the minute they are sworn in..

Senators serve 6 year terms already, so why not just give them a single 8 yr term and be done with it.. Incumbency pretty much assures re-election anyway, so why not just keep them at their desks working instead of begging for running money as soon as they get in?

House should be 4 years.. every 2 years is wasting too much money and time ..considering that most are just re-elected anyway..


No one can convince me that there are only 535 (give or take a few more) who are capable of being a senator or congressperson.

When you think about the fact that we have 300 million plus people, we need MORE diversity of thought and need to spread the "service" around....

Some would say that it takes a long time to "learn the ropes" and the elders need to be there to guide the newbies, but I still maintain that the staff people do most of the work anyway, BUT the people we send there are the ones who have to vote, and it's dangerous to democracy to NOT have term limits..

Elections should be publicly financed and everyone would have the same spending limits.. Lobbyists would be less likely to rent" a senator/house member if they thought they would not have that person in their pockets for decades..

Our congress has 13 major pieces of legislation to deal with each year, and they should be held to ONLY those tasks until they are DONE..and we need single-issue legislation...no more Combo-bills..

We say we want clean government, but HOW do we take it back and clean it up??

Some days I think that by winning the revolutionary war, we may have lost more than we gained.. Canada seems to be doing just fine..and with a parliament, their government seems more responsive to the people than our la-di-dah democracy/republic.. At least with a parliament, we could call for a vote of confidence and get a quick change, instead of having to wait so long to correct a wrong..

Can you IMAGINE the MESS the next president will have to straighten out?? I have lived though many "messes" and believe me..the one who cleans it up, rarely gets much credit..

Everyone wants a pony, but no one wants to shovel the shit:)

[AX10]

1. As long as we don't change the terms of Congressional elections..

it will work. Also, the power of the Congress would have to increase.

[fooj]

2. I think it's a good idea, myself.

Peace.

[Zambero]

3. For starters, if it was in effect we'd have less than a year of * left!

Wonder if it could be made retoactive?

[Richardo]

4. That's how they do it in Mexico

I always thought it made a lot of sense.

[sui generis]

5. I am liking the idea of a verifiable IQ test to be president.

Woopsie - you don't prequalify. Beat it, shrub. There's a great gas station attendant job waiting for you out on a private ranch somewhere.

[JuniperLea]

7. You got that right!

Don't forget the psych tests that measure emotional stability and violent tendencies.

[terrya]

6. I've always liked that idea

I think it makes a great deal of sense.

[SoCalDem]

The founding fathers INTENDED it to be that way

serve...and then go back to your "real life"..

We actually need MORE reps too.. We have greatly increased our population since 435 was set in "stone"

[terrya]

13. I would definitely agree with adding more reps

The population of the United States today is around 300 million. It's more than a little unrealistic to have a permanent group of 435 people representing all 300 million.

[Ian David]

8. I was thinking more of two terms- one 2-year term plus a 4-year term

The 2-year term would be sort of a "trial employment" period.

[Ian David]

9. How about a third house of Congress based on a Parliamentary model? n/t

[Selatius]

14. You could convert the House to that and perhaps modify the Senate, too.

The House would operate on the principles of proportional representation, and each state could be given, say, 5 senators apiece instead of 2. I would justify adding more senators because people are used to voting for individuals, not parties. You'd lose that if you converted over the House, but that could be answered by adjusting the Senate.

[unblock]

10. i don't care for term limits, it's a band-aid at best, not a cure

the real problem is the entrenched incumbencies. term limits, being an artificial limit, will be quickly circumvented by the powers that be. for instance, two like-minded party loyalists can take turns playing senator or whatever.

the real problem is that the advantages of incumbency are overwhelming, to the point where virtually any congresscritter/senator has something like a 95% change of getting reelected. this is ridiculous.

the real cures would involve removing some of the built-in advantages of incumbency that are deprived to challengers.


the best and most general fix would be full public financing of campaigns. get 5,000 signatures and you get matching funds from the state and/or feds and that's that. no private fundraisers. genuine equal t.v. time. etc.

put challengers on equal footing and term limits will take care of themselves. anyone who can win 8 times in a row under those conditions likely can do so only by actually maintaining real popularity.

[mwooldri]

15. Term limits aren't really any good IMO either.

What if there was a really popular president or politican? IMO it would suck that if that person wants to continue in the job that the people can't have the possibility of having that person carry on.

Again, because of my upbringing I do like aspects of the British/English system that could be used over here. I think that the General Election should be able to be called whenever the President wants to. If they're so darned unpopular then they'll get kicked out anyway. However there must be a time when an election can be held. I also favour that if impeachment of the President occurs, it is not a 'next in line' gets the job it's a fresh Presidental election. Also there should be a a vote of 'no confidence' in the government and the parliament should be able to call fresh elections based on this vote of no confidence.

Mark.

[mattclearing]

11. I like it, provided that there is a way to end it after four. n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Related discussion

In GD: Politics

A proposed new US Constitution featuring parliamentary government

The proposal places executive power in the hands of the Prime Minister, who is a member of the House of Representatives, as are his cabinet officers. The President is a member of the Senate and for the most part a figurehead.

It is my view that the power of an independent executive branch has become a menace to liberty and world peace. It is an ongoing systemic problem in American government for which the best solution is simply to do away with it.

The post is also featured in my journal, Jack Rabbit's Warren (please come visit).

[Minnesota Libra]

16. I'd love it!!!!! nt

[applegrove]

17. With all the money Repukes have - that puts them at an advantage.

They seem to be able to run any sort of character and get elected. Dems have to run someone truly great - in some way - to win.

[sandnsea]

18. So staff should run the country?

I think term limits would just be a whole new set of problems. Most of the problems we have seem to be from people who have given about ten minutes of thought to complex issues. I really don't know what the solution to this mess is, I just kind of doubt it's term limits. Although I do agree the House should be 4 year terms, 2 years is ridiculous in this day and age. Maybe campaign limits and if you raise more than the limit you have to give it to your opponent if they're underfunded. That'd teach 'em.

[SoCalDem]

19. Staffers & Lobbyists already DO run the place

Does anyone really believe that congresspeople and senators actually write and research all the "el stinko" bills they push through??

By enforcing a regular shake up in participation, it would also probably start weeding out the staffers who get very "comfy" with their longtime bosses..

Lobbyists would probably have to withdraw too, since there would be no more "money" in it for them.. The candidates would have no use for their money with public financing..and what lobbyist wants to spread cash around to guys they don;t "know really well"?.. The whole ides pf this is to get NEW people percolating through the system, and to discourage people hanging around for 40 years on the public dole..

I would also add a caveat.. NO more revolving door in and out of government..If a cong/sen leaves office and goes to work for a company/lobbyist/industry, and then goes on to be elected to a different office, they MUST recuse themselves on ALL matters relating to the "outside jobs" they held..