General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWould you support a Constitutional Amendment to change House terms from 2 years to 4 years?
Would you support changing the terms of House members from 2 years to 4 years?
The argument for 4-year house terms is that House members essentially are in constant campaign mode. Since they are always having to fundraise, and work for a re-election that is right around the corner, it makes them more susceptible to outside interest groups with deep pockets.
The argument against 4-year house terms is that the 2-year election cycle makes House members more responsive to the public mood, and more responsive to constituent needs.
13 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited | |
I'd support a Constitutional Amendment making House terms 4 years instead of 2 years | |
1 (8%) |
|
I'd oppose a Constitutional Amendment making House terms 4 years instead of 2 years | |
12 (92%) |
|
1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
napi21
(45,806 posts)deception. Few if any keep their campaign promises, but some turn out to be downright horrible and must be ousted.
Orrex
(63,871 posts)Same for the Senate.
And the limit should be reciprocal between both chambers; you can serve a total of two terms in the House or the Senate, or else one term in each.
MANative
(4,133 posts)just like the President. But I'd also want to see two-year staggered elections to maintain some continuity and institutional knowledge.
edhopper
(34,573 posts)Ould remedy this.
neeksgeek
(1,214 posts)Two terms maximum, for both representatives and senators. But the terms should stay two and six years, respectively. I would not support any change of the term length.
meow2u3
(24,899 posts)6 terms for House members and 2 terms for Senators.
I also would propose term limits of 20 years for Supreme Court Justices, as well as lower court judges, to prevent their authority from going to their heads.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)Fluke a Snooker
(404 posts)Too many entrenched Tea Party types to worry about. Frankly, I would be more interested in upping representation of the Senate to more people, or eliminating it altogether and creating a unicameral legislature that listens to the PEOPLE, not the monied interests of the STATE, and making sure that Congress has more progressives.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,860 posts)Second, Bob Kerry threw out an interesting idea in his failed attempt at the Senate. He proposed making the Senate non-partisan. I'm not certain how much difference it would make, but the theory makes sense.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)which would set all district boundaries without reference to any partisan considerations, to put an end to gerrymandering.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Lets just make them all during Presidential years, if you catch my drift.
I seriously think you can't get anything done in 2 years, well, except DESTROY the nation as Republicans do.
rurallib
(63,072 posts)atreides1
(16,315 posts)How about limiting it to 2 four year terms, and do the same with the senate!
JI7
(90,226 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)wasteful
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)then they deserve the results. I also believe in the repeal of the presidential term limit, too.
Skink
(10,122 posts)ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Doubling it in size.
435 people, actually less since TeaBaggers are neither human nor do they take their legislative duties seriously, are too few to adequately represent their constituents. 320,000,000 could never have actual representation from a mere 300+ people. Having so few reps actually increases the power of lobbyists, distances pols from people, and makes washington seem alien to those of us outside the beltway.
Stallion
(6,576 posts)nm