Lawmakers introduce constitutional amendment to impose term limits on Congress

[Belsnickel]

(01-04-2019, 06:48 PM)kdgjr Wrote: 100% agree about Gerrymandering. I believe it is the #1 problem. The lines have been drawn up so that incumbency is practically inevitable.

Draw the maps up independently and term limits maybe don't become as necessary.

I'm also highly in favor of increasing the number in the House. We have the same number of Representatives in the House based on what was set in 1911. With a population three times the size of that time, it is asinine that we have the same number of people representing us. My other ideas are a bit more radical, like eliminating districts altogether, ranked-choice-voting, etc.

[Belsnickel]

(01-04-2019, 06:58 PM)Benton Wrote: So less washington staffs is resulting in more lawmakers who know more and screw stuff up more often than not... But we need to keep those guys because ... Well... We might wind up With lawmakers who screw stuff more often than not?

Go on, pull the other one.

No, the lawmakers aren't using their knowledge, they are letting lobbyists write legislation and do the research. You think the lawmakers are going to do the work themselves?

[*bfine32*]

(01-04-2019, 03:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: I didn't go look up the full proposal but this is something I think most of us can agree on.

or not

[SunsetBengal]

(01-04-2019, 07:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm also highly in favor of increasing the number in the House. We have the same number of Representatives in the House based on what was set in 1911. With a population three times the size of that time, it is asinine that we have the same number of people representing us. My other ideas are a bit more radical, like eliminating districts altogether, ranked-choice-voting, etc.

Ranked-choice-voting?  Not so sure about that.  But, one idea that I think would do much better, would be to do away with campaign ads, and mandate that the candidates face each other in a series of televised debates.  Make these debates broadcast to the entire audience of any particular election;  National, State, or Local.  

I would just about guarantee that when the ads disappear, and the only opportunity people will have to learn about the candidates is to actually listen to them orate, we will get not only a much better informed voting populace, but a lot less knee-jerk voters on election day.

[GMDino]

(01-04-2019, 07:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: or not

"most" is not "all"....I thought you owned a dictionary?

[*bfine32*]

(01-04-2019, 09:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: "most" is not "all"....I thought you owned a dictionary?

Nothing personal; just looks like a 50/50 split. 

FWIW: I don't own a dictionary; I have the internet. 

[GMDino]

(01-04-2019, 10:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nothing personal; just looks like a 50/50 split. 

FWIW: I don't own a dictionary; I have the internet. 

'k

[Belsnickel]

(01-04-2019, 08:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ranked-choice-voting?  Not so sure about that. 

RCV is a more democratic form of an election than first-past-the-post/plurality wins. It also opens the way for third-party and independent candidates. With the way we currently do elections, those votes are wasted and/or spoiler votes. With RCV, someone can vote for the candidate they like the best without concern that it will help guarantee the candidate they like the least will win.

(01-04-2019, 08:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: But, one idea that I think would do much better, would be to do away with campaign ads, and mandate that the candidates face each other in a series of televised debates.  Make these debates broadcast to the entire audience of any particular election;  National, State, or Local.  

I would just about guarantee that when the ads disappear, and the only opportunity people will have to learn about the candidates is to actually listen to them orate, we will get not only a much better informed voting populace, but a lot less knee-jerk voters on election day.

This is what I mean by publicly funded elections. It essentially ends the campaign ads that happen.

[Benton]

(01-04-2019, 07:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, the lawmakers aren't using their knowledge, they are letting lobbyists write legislation and do the research. You think the lawmakers are going to do the work themselves?

I guess my issue is, I think that's going to happen regardless not because of a lack of knowledge, but a lack of civic responsibility and morals. By and large, Congress is full of corrupt self serving individuals. It's not so much they don't know public good from personal gain , it's just they chose the second every time.

At least if we start shooting the corrupted members through there at a faster rate, we'll get around to electing some people who might not be so self serving. 

[Benton]

(01-04-2019, 08:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ranked-choice-voting?  Not so sure about that.  But, one idea that I think would do much better, would be to do away with campaign ads, and mandate that the candidates face each other in a series of televised debates.  Make these debates broadcast to the entire audience of any particular election;  National, State, or Local.  

I would just about guarantee that when the ads disappear, and the only opportunity people will have to learn about the candidates is to actually listen to them orate, we will get not only a much better informed voting populace, but a lot less knee-jerk voters on election day.

I'm not opposed to that, but ultimately I don't think most voters would take the time to watch. As one reader/advertiser told me once 'i don't want to have to read a story, just give me the bullet points.' 

People don't want to spend hours to see what a candidate is about. They want to know who is getting the rose or what the basketball score was.

[Belsnickel]

(01-05-2019, 02:59 AM)Benton Wrote: I guess my issue is, I think that's going to happen regardless not because of a lack of knowledge, but a lack of civic responsibility and morals. By and large, Congress is full of corrupt self serving individuals. It's not so much they don't know public good from personal gain , it's just they chose the second every time.

At least if we start shooting the corrupted members through there at a faster rate, we'll get around to electing some people who might not be so self serving. 

But it takes the choice out of the hands of the voters. If there is a corrupt member of Congress, then it is up to the constituents to decide whether or not to give them the boot. Implementing term limits reduces democracy by taking power away from the voters.

[Benton]

(01-05-2019, 08:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: But it takes the choice out of the hands of the voters. If there is a corrupt member of Congress, then it is up to the constituents to decide whether or not to give them the boot. Implementing term limits reduces democracy by taking power away from the voters.

That's admirable, but (and I don't mean this as an insult) idealistic. When option a is a corrupt guy from one side and option b is a corrupt guy from the other side, there has to be something more done. Maybe the easiest way to have some options -- real ones, not just the same guys in different suits-- is to at least accelerate the process. 

And it's still a choice for the people. By and large, the people keep voting in the same types. If that's what they prefer, there's that option. It still prevents one voice for being over represented, much like term limits for the POTUS.

As far as the knowledge vacuum, if they truly are civic minded they can still serve. They can run for other offices, serve appointments, etc.

[Au165]

(01-04-2019, 08:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ranked-choice-voting?  Not so sure about that.  But, one idea that I think would do much better, would be to do away with campaign ads, and mandate that the candidates face each other in a series of televised debates.  Make these debates broadcast to the entire audience of any particular election;  National, State, or Local.  

I would just about guarantee that when the ads disappear, and the only opportunity people will have to learn about the candidates is to actually listen to them orate, we will get not only a much better informed voting populace, but a lot less knee-jerk voters on election day.

I think that just reinforces party line voting, which is not good for the country as a whole. I'd like to see the party notation removed from the ticket. You can run as a Democrat/Republican, but when the voters are in the booth if they don't know who the people on the ballot are they either opt out (because they obviously aren't qualified to make a choice in this case) or they run the risk of voting for the "bad guys".

[Dill]

(01-04-2019, 05:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't like this. I'm not in favor of congressional term limits for many reasons, but here are 5 good ones:




Many staffers are experts in specific issue areas and serve as sources of institutional memory for members (and other staffers). You limit the tenures, you limit the expertise. And when you limit the expertise, you amplify unintended consequences of policy decisions.

Limited experience and expertise means staffers must look elsewhere for information/policy alternatives and guidance on how to do their jobs effectively. Everything we know says they will turn to special interests to fill the information void.

Plus, we already have a special interest/revolving door problem where private firms lure experienced aides to take advantage of their knowledge and connections, turning an internal congressional resource into an external resource.

Working on Capitol Hill isn’t easy — doing so means long hours, high stress, very limited opportunities for advancement, etc. Effectively defining how long they can stay will make recruiting talent to Congress even more difficult.

We already have a staff turnover problem (see: limited pay) where a Capitol Hill "veteran" is defined as someone who has been there for more than five years. In what other profession does limited experience lead to more effective, efficient outcomes?

The government is YUGE! It takes time to learn policies, develop networks for coalitions, identify key players, let alone know who to call to help constituents with passport and Social Security problems. Limits would render members less efficient at constituent service, too.

Staff give rank-and-file lawmakers a better shot at being involved in policy creation. Limited staff tenures would consolidate decision-making power (even more, if possible) to those with institutional privileges (committee chairs and party leaders).


Experienced aides better know how to conduct congressional oversight, a key role of the First Branch. New aides will be far less familiar in executing agency information requests, conducting investigations, etc.


Staff term limits would exacerbate congressional deference to federal agencies. Novice aides won’t have the issue knowledge or experience to assist members in pulling back policy decisions presently carried out by bureaucrats.

We are likely to witness an infusion of new members after the 2018 midterms who will arrive with no experience working within a more functional Congress. Limiting staff tenures will mean limiting those who have the historical perspective to guide us back to more civil, productive times.

These are excellent points.  But I fear staff work is invisible to many voters, as is the value of institutional memory.

Term limits means re-inventing the wheel again and again.

[*Nately120*]

(01-04-2019, 08:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ranked-choice-voting?  Not so sure about that.  But, one idea that I think would do much better, would be to do away with campaign ads, and mandate that the candidates face each other in a series of televised debates.  Make these debates broadcast to the entire audience of any particular election;  National, State, or Local.  

I would just about guarantee that when the ads disappear, and the only opportunity people will have to learn about the candidates is to actually listen to them orate, we will get not only a much better informed voting populace, but a lot less knee-jerk voters on election day.

Meh, its up to the populace to make itself more informed, not the government to save us from stupid political commercials.  We want insane and scary sensationalized sound bytes, not lengthy debates.

Give us what we crave. We are junkies.

[fredtoast]

Her is all term limits would do.

1.  Limit the choices of voters.

2.  Create a body of lame duck congressmen who do not have to worry about pleasing the people who voted for them.

Basically it frees up more congressmen to do whatever they want for themselves and the lobbyist because they don't have to worry about re-election.

I am not a fan at all.

[Benton]

(01-09-2019, 03:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Her is all term limits would do.

1.  Limit the choices of voters.

2.  Create a body of lame duck congressmen who do not have to worry about pleasing the people who voted for them.

Basically it frees up more congressmen to do whatever they want for themselves and the lobbyist because they don't have to worry about re-election.

I am not a fan at all.

1. There already are limited choices. Middle class Congressmen are rare. Usually it means they were newly elected.
2. They don't. Congress members generally vote in favor of lobbyists and their income tax bracket, which generally is detrimental to those who voted for them. The voters just don't have the options. Just like old people that vote for guys that run on platforms of slashing SS and then say "yeah, but I didn't think he really would" or "what choice did I have, the other guy was a woman."

[mallorian69]

Just out of curiosity, for thos who oppose term limits what is your stance on term limits for POTUS?

[Belsnickel]

(01-11-2019, 11:33 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: Just out of curiosity, for thos who oppose term limits what is your stance on term limits for POTUS?

I think term limits for POTUS are fine, and the reasoning is because it is one person with a ton of power. Now, I'm actually more of a fan of a parliamentary style of government than a presidential one, but if you have a presidential form of government where the executive is elected separately and wields significant authority external of the legislative branch, then term limits are a very reasonable thing. I do, however, agree to term limits on legislative leadership. So Speaker, Party Leaders in both houses, and if it were parliamentary, the PM, all should have limits on them for their service in those roles. Just like POTUS, they carry significant weight as an individual. Right now, for instance, McConnell is single-handedly keeping the government shut down.

And even though you didn't ask about this, I do not agree with limits on service for SCOTUS. The reason being is that the branch is supposed to be non-political, though we know it is to some degree. If there was a known end date of a term for a Justice, it would make the judiciary even more politicized than it already is.

[BmorePat87]

(01-11-2019, 11:33 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: Just out of curiosity, for thos who oppose term limits what is your stance on term limits for POTUS?

I don't think they're necessary. One person is easier to check than 435 and I am not worried about someone being in power for life.