Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Should we lengthen terms of legislators, presidents?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 02:09 PM
Original message
Poll question: Should we lengthen terms of legislators, presidents?
Here me out. A six year term for presidents, six year term for senators, three year term for house members. Somewhere in the middle, after the last campaign and before starting on the next, we might actually get some honest governance...

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. Interesting idea. I would be open to it.
Edited on Sat Jan-15-11 02:17 PM by dkf
Maybe 4 year terms for reps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. The money people will never let it happen
It represents loss of profit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
3. You want honest govt? Take the corporate money out of elections.
Once we stop offering up our representatives to the highest bidder, they'll have to compete for votes with ideas instead of sound bites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleTouch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
4. I'm not so much for lengthening terms, but would like to do away with term limits.
If someone is doing a good job, they should be allowed to be re-elected indefinitely. Having them come up for re-election every few years gives the opportunity to boot them out if they're doing a bad job, but I don't see any reason to kick out someone who's being effective, just on a technicality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. But there is a down side
The voters define who is doing a good job...has McCain really been doing a good job for Arizona?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleTouch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. True, there's a risk...
...but I tend to think it would balance out. No doubt that some legislators would keep getting re-elected by their crazy constituents, but some who are really doing a good job for their people would also keep getting re-elected and thus able to continue to do a good job. The only question is whether it's a beneficial trade-off, overall.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. No one is going to change Constitution to do this...
and there is not other way as these terms of office are set by the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laf.La.Dem. Donating Member (924 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
8. Bush for TWELVE YEARS!!
no - no - no
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Bush would have handidly lost re-election in 2008 if he'd tried to run again
Of course if we're doing counter-factuals, then Clinton would probably have won a third term in 2000. I doubt he would've tried for a 4th term in 2004, but he might have won again. With the crap economy he probably would've stepped aside in 2008.

There are plenty of countries where their chief executive is not term limited and they don't stay in office forever. Washington was right to set the two term precedent for fear of the President becoming a king when our political system was in its infancy. But we have a mature political system today and we can handle Presidents serving three or four terms without fear of them becoming kings.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurks Often Donating Member (505 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. You need to read your history
George Washington chose to limit himself to two 4 year terms and every President up to FDR chose to follow that precedent. It wasn't until FDR (rightly or wrongly) chose to run for 4 consecutive terms did Congress put in the 8 year term.

From Wikipedia: The Twenty-second Amendment, adopted in 1951, prohibits anyone from being elected to the presidency for a third full term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. From where in my post did you imply that I wasn't aware of that fact?
As I said, Washington set a two term "precedent". I didn't say that he took any legal action. He wouldn't have been capable of doing that anyway since term limits were enacted by constitutional amendment and the President has no power in the amendment process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurks Often Donating Member (505 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-11 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. You're right, I mis-read your post somehow. Sorry nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. For reps definately
having an election every two years is unproductive a soon you get in office you start planning for your next election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Exactly! Look at those two knuckleheads who had a fund-raiser before
they were even sworn into office!

Well, they did raise they're hands for the oath to the TV. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
11. I believe in lengthening House Terms and thats it
2 years leads to them constantly preparing for reelection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
12. The best way to clean up corruption in congress is TERM LIMITS
Edited on Sat Jan-15-11 03:48 PM by golfguru
No one needs to be in congress longer than 12 years.
SO 2 terms for senators (many governors have 2 term limits)
and 3 terms of 4 years each for House reps. This 2 year term
is ridiculously short. Makes them operate in constant re-election mode.

The president is just fine the way it is. It has too much power to be in
office longer than 8 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. It's also a great way to give lobbyists further control over the system
It takes years for one to become a good legislator. A congress of neophytes will be even more susceptible to the influence of lobbyists than even the current congress.

Instead of term limits we need spending limits on campaigns so that challengers are on a more equal footing with incumbents. Let the voters decide when it's time for legislators to stay and go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-11 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #14
24. Legislators will be less under the influence of lobbyists with shorter terms
for this reason....the lobbyists will not invest big money on term
limited legislators. SOme of the biggest campaign cash goes to congress
critters who are in safe districts for a long time.

The long term congress critters get all the important committee assignments
and chairmanships and therefore corporations and even foreign countries send
a lot of cash to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-11 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. They'd just dump more cash into the system for the shorter term buyoff.
Anyone who can be bought for 4 years can surely be bought for 2. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-11 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. It will also be easier to buy them off with lucrative job opportunities
If you're term limited to 12 years, you're going to spend a lot more time thinking about what you're going to do in 12 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golfguru Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-11 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #25
30. The committee & sub-committee CHAIRS wield far more power
Edited on Sun Jan-16-11 01:53 AM by golfguru
and they get those positions with SENIORITY. These congress
critters have been the recipients of some of the largest cash
through the years. The longer they serve, the more powerful they
become and more useful to the lobbyists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
13. No. There should be a binding vote of confidence halfway through the term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. I kind of like this idea combined with longer term limits
Consider that if we had a binding confidence vote on both the Congress and the President after a year. It would certainly give them the incentive to hurry the hell up and start fulfilling their campaign promises.

It would also incentivize blue dog types to fall in line during the first year. Because if the party's agenda doesn't pass then they will have to stand for election right away. If it passes, they get another three years before they have to run again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
16. Representatives should definitely have a four year term
Two year terms were meant to put them in constant re-election mode, which made sense in 1789. But in today's world, where the single most effective thing you can do to get re-elected is sit in a room and dial for dollars, it distracts legislators from actually legislating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
17. No. Shorten them. Politicians are
like babies diapers, they should be changed, often.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-11 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #17
29. That's a clever slogan but not really a good argument
Unless of course, we're talking specifically about David Vitter. Then it's a really clever slogan and an even better argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-11 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. There should be very short terms of office.
Personally I would rather that our leaders be selected by something like a lottery. In for a year then out. I am sick of these politicians who spend a ton of money just to get in and feather their nests, do favors for the corporations who install them while we suckers vote for them and they ignore our needs and the needs of our Country. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
18. The sci-fi author Kim Stanley Robinson, in his book Red Mars, proposed drafting politicians.
One would have to read the book for the full argument, but it was a good one, and one I find myself thinking about ever since reading about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-11 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
20. We should be able to vote them out whenever we want.
No terms, no campaigns, and every day is an election day.

What other jobs are based on a year-long (or more) public "job interview", followed by a guaranteed job, no matter how bad your performance is, or how craven your behavior is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
budkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-11 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
23. Hell, no. And there need to be term limits added to Congress
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-11 01:08 AM
Response to Original message
26. Not for a single minute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-11 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
27. If we can't fix campaign finance, we might have to go this route. Although the chances
of them voting to implement it are about as good as campaign finance reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-11 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
32. No, but I must say, two year terms for House members is absurd
It should have been four from the start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-11 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
34. House elections should be every four years and coincide with a presidential election.
Hence, less of an "enthusiasm gap" and a better opportunity to actually get things done.

The Senate should just be abolished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-11 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
35. Term limits are already in place, we call it voting...
If we had 100% of voter registration/turnout, results would be far different. We Americans are remarkably apathetic at how we allow people to unchallenged so often.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
36. God NO!
We should have the ability to recall our Senators if they are not performing as expected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-11 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
37. I would rather Term Limit them all. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 12th 2024, 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC