Term limits: Yes or NO?

[donttread]

I say yes. Two terms max

[sachem]

No. That is what elections are for.

[Chloe]

No. That is what elections are for.

But what if those elections are fixed in some way through money and connections to secure the candidacy of one particular politician for years on end? We may have the choice to vote that person out but if they have no real competition then how legitimate is that vote? Term limits in my opinion means that those elected officials would have less time worrying about reelection and getting good connections for a career in politics and more time possibly doing the things that they are elected to do.

[sachem]

But what if those elections are fixed in some way through money and connections to secure the candidacy of one particular politician for years on end? We may have the choice to vote that person out but if they have no real competition then how legitimate is that vote? Term limits in my opinion means that those elected officials would have less time worrying about reelection and getting good connections for a career in politics and more time possibly doing the things that they are elected to do.Then I guess we best make sure they are not fixed. Too much to learn in a country this size to keep turning over the personnel unnecessarily.

[Chris]

No. That is what elections are for.


What about setting term limits through the amendment process?

[lynn]

Elected politicians have to spend at least 30 hours a week begging for campaign donations which leaves them little time to do anything constructive while in office. Fixing term limits without fixing the underlying problem is a waste of time.

[Chris]

Elected politicians have to spend at least 30 hours a week begging for campaign donations which leaves them little time to do anything constructive while in office. Fixing term limits without fixing the underlying problem is a waste of time.


^That is the problem, and where crony corruption sets in.

[Peter1469]

No. That is what elections are for.

That used to be my position. But I have concluded that there is too much corruption in the system. I now do support term limits. I would say something like 4 terms in congress with which ever combination of House and Senate.

[sachem]

What about setting term limits through the amendment process?No. I'm not in favor of term limits.

Although I haven't given it much thought, I'm not sure the president should be term limited. But that ship has sailed.

[Peter1469]

But what if those elections are fixed in some way through money and connections to secure the candidacy of one particular politician for years on end? We may have the choice to vote that person out but if they have no real competition then how legitimate is that vote? Term limits in my opinion means that those elected officials would have less time worrying about reelection and getting good connections for a career in politics and more time possibly doing the things that they are elected to do.


That is why I am for a strict regulatory scheme creating 100% transparency. That way citizens could see exactly who gave what to who, the amount, and the affiliations involved. Violations of the transparency laws should bar people from politics (to include contributions).

[Newpublius]

What about setting term limits through the amendment process?

At this juncture there's no other course, they've been ruled unconstitutional, so an amendment would be the only way to do it.

[Max Rockatansky]

Term limits: Yes or NO?Yes, but since most proponents and supporters of term limits believe those limits should only apply to other representatives, not their own, it will never pass. Hence, why term limits have been a topic with zero movement for over 40 years.

[donttread]

But what if those elections are fixed in some way through money and connections to secure the candidacy of one particular politician for years on end? We may have the choice to vote that person out but if they have no real competition then how legitimate is that vote? Term limits in my opinion means that those elected officials would have less time worrying about reelection and getting good connections for a career in politics and more time possibly doing the things that they are elected to do.

Well put Chloe, the system is broken

[donttread]

Yes, but since most proponents and supporters of term limits believe those limits should only apply to other representatives, not their own, it will never pass. Hence, why term limits have been a topic with zero movement for over 40 years.

Petitions will be starting in May . the sheep are awakening

[The Xl]

But what if those elections are fixed in some way through money and connections to secure the candidacy of one particular politician for years on end? We may have the choice to vote that person out but if they have no real competition then how legitimate is that vote? Term limits in my opinion means that those elected officials would have less time worrying about reelection and getting good connections for a career in politics and more time possibly doing the things that they are elected to do.

Well said.

I've always been up in the air about whether or not term limits should exist, but with limits, at least in theory, special interests wouldn't be able to control our politicians they way they do, at least not to the extent they do, because they wouldn't be worried about having a career as a politician. Again, it's all in theory, but it's worth a shot at this point.

And that's precisely why it will never happen, special interests that run our government will not allow it to.

[The Xl]

Yes, but since most proponents and supporters of term limits believe those limits should only apply to other representatives, not their own, it will never pass. Hence, why term limits have been a topic with zero movement for over 40 years.

That and the fact that big business, the military industrial complex, bankers, etc, will have a hard time controlling politicians at that point, as their really isn't much upside in listening to them if you're only getting a term out of it. You'd see the type of person that runs from office go from sociopath megalomaniacs who have no qualms with bending to big business as long as glory, money, and power are involved, to honest people trying to help the country.

Make no mistake, Washington and an assortment of special interests want nothing to do with this.

[Peter1469]

One thing that would help immensely would be to move tax day from April 15th to November 1st.

[Ransom]

We already have term limits, they're called elections.

[Peter1469]

We already have term limits, they're called elections.

Superficially that is correct. Now look into the numbers. Incumbency reelection rate, money in the system against new blood, etc.



We already have term limits, they're called elections.




No, somebody is pissing in your face and telling you that it is raining.

[patrickt]

Then I guess we best make sure they are not fixed. Too much to learn in a country this size to keep turning over the personnel unnecessarily.

How long does it take to learn to steal. We have people who are mentally unbalanced and decide as adolescents to be politicians. I suppose it's because they can't spell pedophile. They never had a real job, they don't have normal experiences for Americans. President Clinton, Sen. John Kerry and a lot of others have been politicians since high school.

It's wrong. I corrupts the system and the system corrupts the participants.

Yes, we need term limits. I realize this flies int he face of the liberals desire to have a dictator for life in the White House but that's the way it is.

I would lean towards one, six-year term. Someone like President Obama learns nothing in eight years but a normal person can learn in one year and then work for five and none of the time will be spent on getting elected again.

If a politician can't steal enough in six years to be comfortable he's way too greedy.

[donttread]

We already have term limits, they're called elections.

They don't work

[Max Rockatansky]

That and the fact that big business, the military industrial complex, bankers, etc, will have a hard time controlling politicians at that point, as their really isn't much upside in listening to them if you're only getting a term out of it. You'd see the type of person that runs from office go from sociopath megalomaniacs who have no qualms with bending to big business as long as glory, money, and power are involved, to honest people trying to help the country.

Make no mistake, Washington and an assortment of special interests want nothing to do with this.

While I agree that big business, the rich and other powerful people who pay a lot of money to lobbyists on K Street would be against term limits, the fact remains Halliburton, Pfizer and Exxon can't vote. Only the people who control those companies can vote and their votes, like everyone elses count equally.

[Ransom]

They don't work

Voter apathy and disinterest the reasons, not the process.

[The Xl]

While I agree that big business, the rich and other powerful people who pay a lot of money to lobbyists on K Street would be against term limits, the fact remains Halliburton, Pfizer and Exxon can't vote. Only the people who control those companies can vote and their votes, like everyone elses count equally.

Your vote doesn't actually matter when said politician, regardless of what they campaigned on, does whatever his/her financiers want them to do.

The vote doesn't really mean shit, it's naive to believe otherwise at this point, with so much evidence pointing to the contrary.

[Chris]

We already have term limits, they're called elections.


On presidents. Amendment 22.

[Common]

Im totally absolutely for term limits. One term, sit two then you can run again. Id even settle for two terms then you GTFO

[President Wayne]

I say yes. Two terms max

I have not read all the pages, as it is likely filled with bull crap and complaining from both sides. That said, you have an age old question. On one hand, I agree with and have supported publicly term limits at the federal level. As such, I believe that six terms for the House (i.e. 12 years), two terms for the Senate (i.e. 12 years) and two terms for President (i.e. 8 years) is sufficient. This allows for continuity of government while allowing change to come via term limit. I do not believe that the government would completely change hands in a single election, as you will always have the toppling of members of both parties, rookies come out of no where and win in an upset, etc.

On the other hand, term limits can be destructive to the People. Consider the currently limit on President (of which I still support and agree with). During the first term, the President has to follow some will of the People to some degree in order to be re-elected. However, upon re-election, the President, in theory, can do whatever the hell he or she wishes because there are no more elections to worry about. As such, we have the potential (and some would argue currently seeing) destruction of the Constitution and people based on the will of the President. This may occur with term limits on Congress as well, as they no longer have re-election for that office to worry about and can do as they wish (in terms of voting) with little regards to the people of their state and district.

Overall, I think term limits is still a viable solution, but needs a great deal of thought and care in the drafting of the Amendment. I believe getting the States to ratify the Term Amendment would be difficult and likely would fail to take off.

[zelmo1234]

What about setting term limits through the amendment process?

If we have term limits why have election?

[Peter1469]

If we have term limits why have election?

To elect someone to office? The term limits are to prevent, or at least try to limit, the corruption in the system.

[countryboy]

I say yes. Two terms max
I agree. And no more "set for life" bullshit. Career politicians are the problem. Yes, even Ron Paul.

[Max Rockatansky]

Your vote doesn't actually matter when said politician, regardless of what they campaigned on, does whatever his/her financiers want them to do.

The vote doesn't really mean shit, it's naive to believe otherwise at this point, with so much evidence pointing to the contrary.

Yes, once a politician is elected into office, they can vote as they please. Now tell me my vote doesn't count when he/she comes up for reelection in 2-6 years.

[Ransom]

Superficially that is correct. Now look into the numbers. Incumbency reelection rate, money in the system against new blood, etc.



No, somebody is pissing in your face and telling you that it is raining.

The bitching here is about voter apathy, we the people are the reason for incumbents continually winning, we the people the reason teleprompter reading tv stars now occupy the White House. We've elected great men and women using the current process, it works. It's our Constituencies that need fixing, you see a few examples right here within this membership.

[jillian]

I say yes. Two terms max

*stop me before i vote again* ??

no thanks.

[Peter1469]

Both you and Max would be correct if the majority of the voters were awake. They aren't.


The bitching here is about voter apathy, we the people are the reason for incumbents continually winning, we the people the reason teleprompter reading tv stars now occupy the White House. We've elected great men and women using the current process, it works. It's our Constituencies that need fixing, you see a few examples right here within this membership.

[Mainecoons]

Incumbents have a large built in advantage in elections because they can fund raise better than challengers.

Term limits was good for the presidency, it is badly needed for the Congress.

[sachem]

Both you and Max would be correct if the majority of the voters were awake. They aren't.Says who? What makes any of us think we are the only ones capable of making the "right" decision? Why/who people vote for is a personal thing.

[Peter1469]

Says who? What makes any of us think we are the only ones capable of making the "right" decision? Why/who people vote for is a personal thing.
Look at the incumbent re-election rate. Look at the numbers of people who bother to vote in elections. Corporate interests can override the will of the interested almost anytime it tries.

And this isn't a left / right issue. The left gets hit by this extremely hard in food safety issues.

[patrickt]

One thing that would help immensely would be to move tax day from April 15th to November 1st.

It would help even more if every single U.S. citizen of voting age had to pay a tax. I don't care if it's ten dollars but they should file and live in dread like the rest of us.

[Peter1469]

It would help even more if every single U.S. citizen of voting age had to pay a tax. I don't care if it's ten dollars but they should file and live in dread like the rest of us.

Absolutely.

[sachem]

Look at the incumbent re-election rate. Look at the numbers of people who bother to vote in elections. Corporate interests can override the will of the interested almost anytime it tries.

And this isn't a left / right issue. The left gets hit by this extremely hard in food safety issues.Then maybe we need to look at it from another angle. Money/influence from corporate interests. Maybe the limits need to be put somewhere besides the number of terms?

[Peter1469]

Then maybe we need to look at it from another angle. Money/influence from corporate interests. Maybe the limits need to be put somewhere besides the number of terms?

As I said before, a system of 100% transparency would be nice. That way interested voters would know exactly who gave what and how much to their congress-critter. Violations could result simply in a ban from politics. No need to waste jail space on them.

[sachem]

As I said before, a system of 100% transparency would be nice. That way interested voters would know exactly who gave what and how much to their congress-critter. Violations could result simply in a ban from politics. No need to waste jail space on them.Jail? No. Fines. Big, big fines. Millions.

But I would rather see public financing of elections.

[Newpublius]

But I would rather see public financing of elections.

Why? So that the government itself can determine who will and who won't be able to stand a chance at being elected to power in the government? Not to mention its already happening, at least partially of course.

Don't you love how your tax dollars help to pay and offset the costs of the Republican and Democratic Conventions?

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#Primary

What's even worse if you think about it are these two parties having primary elections and those elections happen at our public polling places.

[sachem]

Why? So that the government itself can determine who will and who won't be able to stand a chance at being elected to power in the government? Not to mention its already happening, at least partially of course.

Don't you love how your tax dollars help to pay and offset the costs of the Republican and Democratic Conventions?

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml#Primary

What's even worse if you think about it are these two parties having primary elections and those elections happen at our public polling places.No. So more people have a fighting chance.

[Newpublius]

No. So more people have a fighting chance.

Well, fact is its implemented and not to make sure you have a fighting chance, but to make sure you don't.

[sachem]

Well, fact is its implemented and not to make sure you have a fighting chance, but to make sure you don't.Elections are not totally public funded. At least not where I live. (In the U.S.)

[Chris]

Then maybe we need to look at it from another angle. Money/influence from corporate interests. Maybe the limits need to be put somewhere besides the number of terms?


How do you propose to regulate government then?

[Chris]

Jail? No. Fines. Big, big fines. Millions.

But I would rather see public financing of elections.


So to solve the problem of government corruption you'd give government more power?

[sachem]

So to solve the problem of government corruption you'd give government more power?We are the government. So I guess so.

[Chris]

We are the government. So I guess so.


We are the government? Where's my office? And yours?

[Max Rockatansky]

We are the government. So I guess so.

Agreed "We are the government", but disagreed about giving those we empower more power. In fact, I favor clipping their wings a bit. The SOBs have too much power as it is.

[President Wayne]

Then maybe we need to look at it from another angle. Money/influence from corporate interests. Maybe the limits need to be put somewhere besides the number of terms?
sachem:

In this case, you would need to have Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturned, and I do not see that happening, as this was a constitutional law case decided by the Supreme Court that, in essence, allows the lawful unlimited and untracked contributions by corporations into super PACs. This is the latest issue in corruption of the government. Also, this really deserves its own thread, something along the lines of "Government corruption", "Restoring the Republic", etc. This thread is dedicated to term limits, but I like where you are thinking and going.

[KC]

I say yes, end reelection to all federal public offices. Single term limits.

[Max Rockatansky]

Most Americans favor legislation to correct the ruling. Including making an amendment to do so.

http://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/one-year-after-citizens-united-v-fec-decision

Nearly a year after the Citizens United decision, polls consistently show that the vast, bipartisan majority of the American public believes two things: that the case was wrongly decided, and that it should be remedied legislatively, and, if necessary, through a constitutional amendment.

[Chris]

Agreed "We are the government", but disagreed about giving those we empower more power. In fact, I favor clipping their wings a bit. The SOBs have too much power as it is.



If we are the government then "giving those we empower more power" would empower us, and "clipping their wings" would clip ours, and we "have too much power as it is".

Sorry but "we are the government" is enough to make one's head spin.

[Max Rockatansky]

Only for armchair academics. People grounded in reality understand "We, the People" have the power to force our own government to do as we like or face revolt.

[Chris]

Only for armchair academics. People grounded in reality understand "We, the People" have the power to force our own government to do as we like or face revolt.

Agree we the people"have the power to force our own government to do as we like or face revolt." Thus we the people are not the government or, for, again, we wouldn't need to force ourselves or rebel against ourselves.

Sorry but "we are the government" is enough to make one's head spin.

Stow the well poisoning, it's pointless.

[Peter1469]

Jail? No. Fines. Big, big fines. Millions.

But I would rather see public financing of elections.

I would rather see the public wake up and care about who represent them.

[sachem]

I would rather see the public wake up and care about who represent them.
I think the public is awake. I just don't think people always are happy with the result.

[Peter1469]

I think the public is awake. I just don't think people always are happy with the result.

Then why do the corrupt get re-elected over and over? No. Most people are asleep. And considering that time, I am going to join them, at least for a few hours.

[KC]

As long as the possibility of reelection exists politicians will serve their corporate and wealthy backers, unions and special interests rather than the general welfare.

[sachem]

Then why do the corrupt get re-elected over and over? No. Most people are asleep. And considering that time, I am going to join them, at least for a few hours.The corrupt have always been elected and re-elected. Since the beginning of time.

Sleep well.

[Peter1469]

The corrupt have always been elected and re-elected. Since the beginning of time.

Sleep well.

Thanks.

So give someone else a chance to be elected.

[Max Rockatansky]

I watched the documentary "Mitt" on Netflix yesterday. It was excellent. A great insight to the man. Highly recommended to all political junkies.

For the past month I've also been watching the entire "the West Wing" television series. Coincidentally, I'm on season 6 which depicts an upcoming Presidential election where the incumbent won't be eligible due to term limitations. Obviously it's fictitious, but it depicts some real life issues confronting candidates in a national election. "Mitt" was excellent at showing some of these same issues IRL.

[sachem]

I watched the documentary "Mitt" on Netflix yesterday. It was excellent. A great insight to the man. Highly recommended to all political junkies.

For the past month I've also been watching the entire "the West Wing" television series. Coincidentally, I'm on season 6 which depicts an upcoming Presidential election where the incumbent won't be eligible due to term limitations. Obviously it's fictitious, but it depicts some real life issues confronting candidates in a national election. "Mitt" was excellent at showing some of these same issues IRL.I did not watch"Mitt" on Netflix last night. I am currently watching the entire "The West Wing" series. I just started season six.

[Max Rockatansky]

I did not watch"Mitt" on Netflix last night. I am currently watching the entire "The West Wing" series. I just started season six.

"Mitt" is available on-demand for Netflix subscribers. I believe they still offer one-month free for no penalty of cancelling. I travel for a living and love it for watching on the road.

[sachem]

"Mitt" is available on-demand for Netflix subscribers. I believe they still offer one-month free for no penalty of cancelling. I travel for a living and love it for watching on the road.
Yeah. I am watching WW on Netflix. I will eventually get to "Mitt". I'm not a fan so I will have to work my way up to it.

[zelmo1234]

Thanks.

So give someone else a chance to be elected.

It is highly likely that the people will elect someone just a corrupt as the person that is term limited. We see this is States that have term limits.

The quality of the representatives did not go up but rather down!

[Max Rockatansky]

Yeah. I am watching WW on Netflix. I will eventually get to "Mitt". I'm not a fan so I will have to work my way up to it.

If you're interested in political "behind the scenes" movies, it's a good one.

[Max Rockatansky]

A few more political documentaries with their IMDB ratings available on Netflix that I've added to my que:

Patriocracy 6.7
The Big Fix 7.6
Sarah Palin: You Betcha! 6.2
The Billionaires' Tea Party 7.7

[sachem]

If you're interested in political "behind the scenes" movies, it's a good one.


A few more political documentaries with their IMDB ratings available on Netflix that I've added to my que:

Patriocracy 6.7
The Big Fix 7.6
Sarah Palin: You Betcha! 6.2
The Billionaires' Tea Party 7.7Thanks for the recommendations.

[nathanbforrest45]

But what if those elections are fixed in some way through money and connections to secure the candidacy of one particular politician for years on end? We may have the choice to vote that person out but if they have no real competition then how legitimate is that vote? Term limits in my opinion means that those elected officials would have less time worrying about reelection and getting good connections for a career in politics and more time possibly doing the things that they are elected to do.

Oh, you mean like if there is voter fraud by allowing those to vote who have no right to do so?

[nathanbforrest45]

Elected politicians have to spend at least 30 hours a week begging for campaign donations which leaves them little time to do anything constructive while in office. Fixing term limits without fixing the underlying problem is a waste of time.


You say that like its a bad thing. Someone much wiser than me stated the government that governs least governs best. So, if they are raising money for reelection and not actually fucking us over just how bad is that?

[nathanbforrest45]

Go back to the original idea of the Founding Fathers and allow the state legislatures to pick their own Senators. There is much more control of the state legislature by the people and if the state is picking the senate they are much more likely to follow the wishes of the state who then follows the wishes of the people. If the Senate is not running for "reelection" by the people just how many lobbyist will go by the wayside? Of course, allowing the State legislature to actually pick the Senate would also require a return to the original intent of the Constitution and the philosophy of States Rights. That can never be allowed if your intent is complete control of the people.

[nathanbforrest45]

Only for armchair academics. People grounded in reality understand "We, the People" have the power to force our own government to do as we like or face revolt.


But as long as that government appears to be taking from you to give to me I am not going to revolt.

[Max Rockatansky]

But as long as that government appears to be taking from you to give to me I am not going to revolt.

Possibly. However, that doesn't take away from the fact "We, the People" have the power to do it.

[Ransom]

Both you and Max would be correct if the majority of the voters were awake. They aren't.

You are correct, they are in fact sound asleep. I just feel that denying my choice to vote for my selected candidate takes my rights away. Regardless of the person's previous employment....including being my representative...nothing should disqualify any candidate to run for office. I understand executive term limits, however We the People should be able to elect who we want representing us......a previous office holder, a lawyer, a judge, a trash collector, a community organizer, an idiot, or even a Democrat. I feel term limits are a kneejerk reaction to the less than par for the course candidates we keep getting stuck with. They might be losers and unpopular, but they are elected in a currently fair process. Full disclosure, laws forcing candidates to reveal their funding and where it all comes from.....open door campaigns allowing the public to judge their best candidate are the answers...not term limits.

[Ransom]

As long as the possibility of reelection exists politicians will serve their corporate and wealthy backers, unions and special interests rather than the general welfare.

Especially when after they do so, you elect them right back in.

[Captain Obvious]

While I want to say yes, my real answer is - it really doesn't fucking matter.

What "term limits" really are are measures to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things - like voting the same schlocks in term after term after term.

That's not treating the disease, it's treating the symptoms.

People will still fuck it up.



On a side note - Chloe , love the new avatar pic and don't take this the wrong way, I mean it in a funny way but it reminded me of this:

5625

[Chris]

While I want to say yes, my real answer is - it really doesn't fucking matter.

What "term limits" really are are measures to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things - like voting the same schlocks in term after term after term.

That's not treating the disease, it's treating the symptoms.

People will still fuck it up.



On a side note - Chloe , love the new avatar pic and don't take this the wrong way, I mean it in a funny way but it reminded me of this:

5625




That's not treating the disease, it's treating the symptoms.

True that^.

As Madison put it, Federalist 51: "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

I guess we're still trying to figure that one out.

[Chloe]

Oh, you mean like if there is voter fraud by allowing those to vote who have no right to do so?

Yeah that would probably be an example I guess. I think I meant more along the lines of elections being bought and paid for even before they start.

[Ransom]

Yeah that would probably be an example I guess. I think I meant more along the lines of elections being bought and paid for even before they start.

But it's we the voter who has been bought, Chloe. Make sure you understand who the recepient is.....We the People. Big union handouts, exemptions from Obamacare, corporate welfare, voter welfare, food stamp programs, medicare and medicaid...the American voter is being bought off, the Democrat Party has been doing it for decades.

[Max Rockatansky]

Yeah that would probably be an example I guess. I think I meant more along the lines of elections being bought and paid for even before they start.

I wouldn't say "bought and paid for", but clearly it takes money to win elections. On both the documentary "Mitt" and the fictional election year on "The West Wing season 6 (2004-2005)" the subject of money came up. Comments like "dumping another million" into a state or region to push the vote in their direction.

While that can be cynically seen as buying votes, it's no more buying votes than paying millions for a Superbowl commercial forces people to buy certain products.