NationStates Jolt Archive

I think they should....then maybe more work would get done...wishful thinking I know...but I'm an optimistic kinda person...

Yes, I think they ought to have term limits too...

...I also think that the lobbyists and special interest groups need to be banned from D.C. too...

...what do I know though... :p

Term limits always seem so undemocratic. They should fit right in.

Yes, I think they ought to have term limits too...

...I also think that the lobbyists and special interest groups need to banned from D.C. too...

...what do I know though... :p

I seriously think that would be a good idea, but then how would the members of Congress make their money?

Although i guess they could always vote for a pay raise.

Term limits always seem so undemocratic. They should fit right in.

Not exactly, since they lend to oligarchy and plutocracy.

The lack of term limits, that is, lead to people nesting themselves well, into oligarchic and plutocratic relationships, generally.

Nay. Having experienced politicians in Washington is important. Having to have someone relearn the process every 6 years would slow down progress and put even more unbalanced amounts of power into the hands of the lobbyists.

I seriously think that would be a good idea, but then how would the members of Congress make their money?

Although i guess they could always vote for a pay raise.

Most congressmen are fine without their paycheck from running the country..which they don't even do very well...if I do my job poorly I get fired..and I agree banning of special interest groups and lobbying...

Most congressmen are fine without their paycheck from running the country..which they don't even do very well...if I do my job poorly I get fired..and I agree banning of special interest groups and lobbying...

I don't. Freedom of speech and all that. We can place reasonable restrictions on lobbyists, and we do try to, but we can't ban lobbying.

Nay. Having experienced politicians in Washington is important. Having to have someone relearn the process every 6 years would slow down progress and put even more unbalanced amounts of power into the hands of the lobbyists.

Well they wouldn't be capped at one term. They could have at least 2 terms, or possibly have 3 or 4.

Nay. Having experienced politicians in Washington is important. Having to have someone relearn the process every 6 years would slow down progress and put even more unbalanced amounts of power into the hands of the lobbyists.

Most people running for office have political experience...already...and we should ban lobbying etc from politics..then maybe the senators would actually act on the interest of the people they supposedly represent

Max 2 terms for Senators and 6 terms for Congresscritters. Give them 12 years. That should be enough for them to accomplish things. I never bought into the seniority crap and it keeps fresh blood in.

~S

I don't. Freedom of speech and all that. We can place reasonable restrictions on lobbyists, and we do try to, but we can't ban lobbying.

Lobbyists create corruption, that's what they do. They bribe people to do things in favor of their business. It's wrong and it's just not about freedom of speech, it's about our Congress serving us and our country rather than assorted businesses.

Well they wouldn't be capped at one term. They could have at least 2 terms, or possibly have 3 or 4.

For a member of the house, 2 terms is 4 years. Like I said. We'd lose all the expertise we had in Washington.

For a member of the house, 2 terms is 4 years. Like I said. We'd lose all the expertise we had in Washington.

I was referring to the senate.

Lobbyists create corruption, that's what they do. They bribe people to do things in favor of their business. It's wrong and it's just not about freedom of speech, it's about our Congress serving us and our country rather than assorted businesses.

So... You've read some angry paper about Jack Abramoff, and maybe understand that a couple Rethuglicans got taken down on bribery charges. That's nice. Guess what? Most lobbyists don't even deal in money. The primary service that lobbyists deal in is information. A few bad apples may seem to spoil the whole bunch, but special interests, if properly checked, actually provide a service to America.

Besides which, campaign contributions fall under Freedom of Speech, and the right to Lobby falls clearly into the right to assemble. I don't care what populist tripe you've been fed by the mass media, rights come first.

Most people running for office have political experience...

Not at the Federal level. Being a State Senator does not count as Federal Experience.

So... You've read some angry paper about Jack Abramoff, and maybe understand that a couple Rethuglicans got taken down on bribery charges. That's nice. Guess what? Most lobbyists don't even deal in money. The primary service that lobbyists deal in is information. A few bad apples may seem to spoil the whole bunch, but special interests, if properly checked, actually provide a service to America.

Besides which, campaign contributions fall under Freedom of Speech, and the right to Lobby falls clearly into the right to assemble. I don't care what populist tripe you've been fed by the mass media, rights come first.

What service do they provide?

What service do they provide?

Information. The primary source of information for Committees and individual legislators is from the testimony of members of Lobbying groups (evil groups like the ACLU, the SPCA, and ACORN are lobbying groups too, you know?) and the information they provide.

Nay. Having experienced politicians in Washington is important. Having to have someone relearn the process every 6 years would slow down progress and put even more unbalanced amounts of power into the hands of the lobbyists.

Both our Senator AND one of our Reps qualify my statement about them.
There is too long for people, and both of them reflect that swimmingly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/6988027p-6889112c.html
http://www.adn.com/front/story/9086333p-9002385c.html

Both our Senator AND one of our Reps qualify my statement about them.
There is too long for people, and both of them reflect that swimmingly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/6988027p-6889112c.html
http://www.adn.com/front/story/9086333p-9002385c.html

And this is what elections are for, my good man.

Information. The primary source of information for Committees and individual legislators is from the testimony of members of Lobbying groups (evil groups like the ACLU, the SPCA, and ACORN are lobbying groups too, you know?) and the information they provide.

Ok, granted not all lobbying groups are bad. But lobbyists for businesses do what service to our country?

Well, it comes down to your choice of poisons. You either have entrenched politicians that, when it comes down to it, you can vote out of office, running the country, or you have an entrenched bureaucracy doing the same, and you can't get rid of them.

And this is what elections are for, my good man.

There's the pain of living in a red state, methinks. :(

Ok, granted not all lobbying groups are bad. But lobbyists for businesses do what service to our country?

The same service that the ACLU does for our country. They primarily handle media pressure and information that supports their cause. They have the right to say what they want to as well, you know.

True, they have the right to say what they want, but they shouldn't be bribing Congress members.

True, they have the right to say what they want, but they shouldn't be bribing Congress members.

And that's why we have laws in place to, theoretically, prevent such things, and why the Dems are trying to pass more ethics reforms.

And that's why we have laws in place to, theoretically, prevent such things, and why the Dems are trying to pass more ethics reforms.

Ok, i think we are in agreement.

I don't. Freedom of speech and all that. We can place reasonable restrictions on lobbyists, and we do try to, but we can't ban lobbying.

well we could have the definition of bribery expanded to fit anything that a lobbyist could do so if they tried to get a person in the Senate to vote they could just be arrested....

Not at the Federal level. Being a State Senator does not count as Federal Experience.

Everyone has to start somewhere...and still they would have some political experience..just not at a federal level..doesn't mean they would be horrible leaders...our founding fathers didn't have any experience running a nation and they did a pretty damn good job of getting the ball rolling..not to mention all that experience in Washington doesn't get jack shit done about anything all they ever do is sit around with their thumbs up their asses that goes for both dems and republicans..they're all equally useless...

The problem isn't term limits. It's the fact that the districts are politically skewed, so you can be elected easily term after term.

3-term limit on representatives, with no long-term after-office benefit until the third term.

2-term for senators, with no long-term after-office benefit until the second term.


Give them a big incentive to get reelected.

Not only should there be term limits, no one should ever hold more than one office ever. What ever office they hold, they should receive a lifetime salary sufficient that they can live very comfortably on it. At one time I thought that office holders should be selected by throwing darts at the telephone directory pasted to the wall, but with the increasing use of cell phones that won't really work.

Seriously, a random selection of citizens couldn't do any worse, and can probably do much better, than those lifetime office holders we have now...

If you are going to force people to choose which rich guy is their ruler, you might as well let them choose the rich guy they want without restriction.

I think all politicians should be limited to 0 terms.

Most congressmen are fine without their paycheck from running the country..which they don't even do very well...if I do my job poorly I get fired..and I agree banning of special interest groups and lobbying...

So politicians would make decisions in a sequestered fashion, like a sitting jury? They couldn't even be allowed to read newspapers or watch opinion shows, for fear of being lobbied?

Actually, the Mandarins lived in a seperate world rather like that, and it worked OK for centuries. Wildly undemocratic, though.

I think it's a simple matter of money. Lobbyists are fine, so long as they can offer only intellectual persuasion, not financial incentives like campaign donations or business decisions based on getting their way.

If Senators/Representatives had term limits, you would see a lot of bullshit when people got in their last term. Do you think Bush would be doing all this stuff if it wasn't his last term? No, he would be doing everything possible to get on the publics good side for re-election.

Can't we come up with some sort of compromise? Something that makes it easier to unseat a sitting member, without actually forcing a representative out who is doing everything right and pleasing their constituents?

I do feel that the "devil you know" factor keeps useless politicians in positions they don't deserve. I'd like to see the balance tipped towards the challenger, but term limits are too rigid a solution.

Can't we come up with some sort of compromise? Something that makes it easier to unseat a sitting member, without actually forcing a representative out who is doing everything right and pleasing their constituents?

I do feel that the "devil you know" factor keeps useless politicians in positions they don't deserve. I'd like to see the balance tipped towards the challenger, but term limits are too rigid a solution.

How about a pre-election approval poll for the incumbent. If they can't get at least 60% then they can't stand again in the general election.

How about a pre-election approval poll for the incumbent. If they can't get at least 60% then they can't stand again in the general election.

60%? That's a bit on the high side. 50% might be reasonable, but even that is high.

At any rate, people can huff and puff about change until they're blue in the face, but it will never happen. It would take a Constitutional Ammendment to do that.

How about a pre-election approval poll for the incumbent. If they can't get at least 60% then they can't stand again in the general election.

I doubt there'd be much turnout in the pre-poll, and supporters of the challenger would vote them down just to remove the advantage of incumbency. (All the challenger's voters) + (Incumbents disssatisfied voters) > 40%, almost always.

Perhaps a second option next to whomever you vote for, to say whether you are happy with the candidate, or merely see them as the lesser of two evils. If they don't have the confidence of 50% of those who voted for them, they can't stand in the next election. There would be a lag of one term, but it would eliminate the above problem (your satisfaction only counts if you actually vote for that candidate) and there wouldn't be a need for an extra poll.

How's that sound?

60%? That's a bit on the high side. 50% might be reasonable, but even that is high.

At any rate, people can huff and puff about change until they're blue in the face, but it will never happen. It would take a Constitutional Ammendment to do that.

Three things:

1) I'm not sure if the 60% thing is really that high if you look at a congressional map. Also, when you ask people, very often, it is never 'their' congressman that is the problem. So I'm not convinced that a sixty percent requirement in a general approval poll (especially since most people probably wouldn't vote except for the sitting congressperson's base) is out of order.

2) I understand it may be constitutional.

3) I am a big believer in a high turnover for elected politicians. It actually works. Look at NYC.

2) I understand it may be constitutional.

No, not really. Every court ruling on the issue has said that the only way to change the requirements to stand for election for a federal office is to change the Constitution.

3) I am a big believer in a high turnover for elected politicians. It actually works. Look at NYC.

Um... Giulliani? Yeah... Good government that.

I doubt there'd be much turnout in the pre-poll, and supporters of the challenger would vote them down just to remove the advantage of incumbency. (All the challenger's voters) + (Incumbents disssatisfied voters) > 40%, almost always.

I'm not convinced it would be that easy. Mostly because there would be much turnout and the incumbent would have an active party machine.

But reasonable people can differ about a hypothetical outcome.

Perhaps a second option next to whomever you vote for, to say whether you are happy with the candidate, or merely see them as the lesser of two evils. If they don't have the confidence of 50% of those who voted for them, they can't stand in the next election. There would be a lag of one term, but it would eliminate the above problem (your satisfaction only counts if you actually vote for that candidate) and there wouldn't be a need for an extra poll.

How's that sound?

That's actually a better idea than mine. The only problem I can see is in the context of certain US elected offices like the Senate, where they would still have six years. (Or in the case of the UK parliamentary system where you could be wedded to them for the next five years, they could become a cabinet minister and go off to a safe seat or something).

But certainly for short terms, like the house of reps, it probably would work a lot better than what I was thinking of.

Um... Giulliani? Yeah... Good government that.

And is he mayor now?

Actually I was talking about the City Council, which are pretty much all democrats (it's gerrymandered to hell here) but has become a far more responsive body with the higher turnover.

I'm not convinced it would be that easy. Mostly because there would be much turnout and the incumbent would have an active party machine.

But reasonable people can differ about a hypothetical outcome.

:)
I can't honestly say I've given it that much thought. Just speculating.

The only problem I can see is in the context of certain US elected offices like the Senate, where they would still have six years. (Or in the case of the UK parliamentary system where you could be wedded to them for the next five years, they could become a cabinet minister and go off to a safe seat or something).

Terms are too long anyway. Perhaps we should be looking at yearly elections for one quarter or one third of each house, giving individual terms of four or three years.

Oh well. Since every member of the actual body which would need to reform the system would personally be disadvantaged by it, I think we can assume that we're talking complete moonshine anyway.

Whether it's term limits or some kind of satisfaction test, I think moving from one seat to another to avoid it must be ruled out. They'd have to be out for at least a term. Let 'em go be a Governor or sheriff or something.

Nay. Having experienced politicians in Washington is important. Having to have someone relearn the process every 6 years would slow down progress and put even more unbalanced amounts of power into the hands of the lobbyists.

Those are the problems we've had in Michigan after putting term limits on our Legislature. That and the bastards get health care benefits after they turn 55 for the rest of their lives, just for serving 2 terms. Also, the appointed bureaucrats in the capital have far more sway than they should, since they have all of these new inexperienced legislators every few years.

Terms are too long anyway. Perhaps we should be looking at yearly elections for one quarter or one third of each house, giving individual terms of four or three years.

Yah, I think that would make a lot of sense actually.


Whether it's term limits or some kind of satisfaction test, I think moving from one seat to another to avoid it must be ruled out. They'd have to be out for at least a term. Let 'em go be a Governor or sheriff or something.

Also, agree. Though it could create a lot of problems with the UK parliamentary system. For example the MP who resigns his seat or doesn't stand again. How should he or she be treated in that case. Still I'm sure the details could be worked out.

I would also like to see in the case of the US system the number of reps hugely expanded. Maybe about 3000 in the house instead of the current 435.

Still, as you say, all moonshine, 'cause they'd find some reason not pass it, even if everyone voted for it.

*...*
I would also like to see in the case of the US system the number of reps hugely expanded. Maybe about 3000 in the house instead of the current 435.
*...*

To make electorates smaller? For some other reason?

I wouldn't disagree with them. Hell if only we could limit Hillary to 0 terms that would make me happy.

To make electorates smaller? For some other reason?

Yah. Currently it's around half a million in the US per House Rep. (more or less). It's too unaccountable with those sort of numbers. I'd like to see something in the 60-100 thousand range, which would make it more personal and therefore more accountable.

Also makes gerrymandering harder.

It would also give the US system a solid set of back benchers, who could just heckle on principle.

So three reasons, at least, I suppose.

I would also like to see in the case of the US system the number of reps hugely expanded.

Actually, I would like to see that as well. I'd like to see each state's delegation to be largely increased (perhaps by a power of 4) and to have said delegations chosen by proportional representation.

Actually, I would like to see that as well. I'd like to see each state's delegation to be largely increased (perhaps by a power of 4) and to have said delegations chosen by proportional representation.

so you're not satisfied with the number of idiots in washington already..and you want to increase the number of people who do nothing all day and waist away your tax money...wanking around..

so you're not satisfied with the number of idiots in washington already..and you want to increase the number of people who do nothing all day and waist away your tax money...wanking around..

Well, I'd also like them to take substantial (and I do mean substantial) pay and benefit cuts. Also, in my perfect world the states would handle 99% of domestic policy so Congress could be part time. Of course, I may as well wish for world peace, since it's about as likely.

I agree....sadly I have to agree with both points....

Yah. Currently it's around half a million in the US per House Rep. (more or less). It's too unaccountable with those sort of numbers. I'd like to see something in the 60-100 thousand range, which would make it more personal and therefore more accountable.
*...*

Your proposal to increase the size of the US House would appear to be in keeping with the original intentions in the Constitution. The number of members (from my brief reading, ie Wikipedia) was indexed to total population until 1911, since when the population has increased 4-fold. Simply repealing Public Law 62-5 should allow the Senate to set the size of the House to what you suggest, no need for an Amendment.

I realize this is a lower limit to electorate size, but it gives some idea of what was originally intended:
The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative