It's all about the senate really

[cooolandrew]

This appears to be where the democracy fails firstly too few senators should be at least 200. Secondly, they need their term limits restricted to 4 years and only 2 terms. The longer the boogers stay the more the epidemic of corruption prevails. Which again is why cadidate is the new face on the scene Barack oh bama. =)

[cali]

1. Wow. That's a couple of really bad ideas you just put forth

200 Senators? Just what would that solve? And how would you go about it? Would tiny states each have four? Or would it be representational?
As for the term limits, forget it. Yes, I'd like to see some (even really good Senators) retire after say, 35 or 40 years, but I recognize that that's up to them and the voters in their states.

[cooolandrew]

10. 200 senators would make corrupting officials a more hard task

[kikiek]

2. Some of the greatest Senators are long term. One of my favorites Ted Kennedy comes to mind. There

will always be those who abuse something, and we need to find ways to deal with them. But I disagree about the length of time and terms. That won't stop the bad ones it will just rotate them. There are always more flying monkeys waiting in the wings, and they will take over where the last one left off. The turn over in the House is quick for a reason. Be careful what you wish for.

[a kennedy]

4. and we can't forget Russ Feingold!!

whew, would be a disgrace if he were only there for two terms.....yikes. :patriot:

[cali]

5. Kennedy, Harkin, Leahy, Boxer

etc. Though honestly, much as I love Leahy, it wouldn't bother me if he didn't run in 2010- he'll have been in the Senate for 36 years by then. That's a good long run.

[kikiek]

6. The ones we can certainly count on! I am so happy they are there.

[cooolandrew]

11. Which on the Republican side is the reverse, I just think it would fix things to a degree

[donheld]

3. No way in hell -- really bad ideas

:banghead:

[Cosmocat]

7. Yeah ...

1) Term limits is flat being lazy ... We HAVE term limits ... Every elected official has to be rehired after a term is complete ... The problem isn't setting some kind of limit to how many terms an elected official can serve, the problem is the PEOPLE WHO DO NOT VOTE, as well as the people who do not educate themselves to vote ... Term limits won't get better people into office ... The only thing that will get better people into office is more people investing and engaging in the elective process ...

2) Honestly, I think there should be some serious consideration about having house terms moved to three years ... These people spend one out of two years actually doing their job ... The second year is all about getting reelected and NOT doing anything legislatively that will jeopardize their election ...

3) EITHER WAY ... We HAVE to get campaign finance reform ... I am running for a county office in a mid sized PA county, a row office, not even a commissioner post ... I will spend over 15 thousand before it is all said and done ...

[cooolandrew]

12. Well I think new fresh faces would maintain new fresh politics, I maybe totally wrong....

Just a laymans opinion.

[jsamuel]

8. that is the point of the senate, it is a mini Supreme Court

It, like the Supreme Court is a buffer against radical change over a short period of time. Since it takes a lifetime to completely replace the Supreme Court and 6 years to completely replace the Senate, a rogue administration will have a tough time doing everything they want, even with the support of the people. The problem we are having now is that we want it to change back, but we need to realize that it will take the next 4 years to do it as far as the Senate is concerned. It will take a lifetime as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

[cooolandrew]

13. It's currently a supreme mess........

[Benhurst]

9. Dole and Burr (NC) have each been in only one term and it's past

time for them to go.

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. But that essentially makes another House