Now do you support term limits for Congress?

[bluestateguy]

I do.

So few districts are competitive due to excessive gerrymandering and Congressmen who have basically lifetime seats because they are so well entrenched through the incumbency advantage. So you end up with a large number of people in Congress who become arrogant, thinking that they are untouchable, invincible and unaccountable for their actions. They become conservative with a small "c"--resistant to change and anti-reform. They also become co-opted by the Washington establishment and perks: the lobbyists, the worthless junkets abroad, the cocktail parties in Georgetown townhouses and the bureaucratic mindset that stifles reform.

Term limits would make more districts competitive and guarantee a steady supply of new reformist blood in Congress.

[Renew Deal]

1. 6 Terms for the House 4 for the Senate

I think that's more than fair.

[ck4829]

2. Term Limits but they can run again

They run for 2 terms and then they give it up and then run again.

It can be non-consecutive.

[Rhiannon12866]

35. Excellent idea. I wasn't sure how to vote, since I agree that we have

to prune the dead wood, but there are some excellent reps in Congress, whom we desperately need. What would we do without John Conyers or Dennis Kucinich, for example? I hope that those two stick around until they're as old as Robert Byrd. Thanks.:-)

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. It is undemocratic to limit the options of voters

If the voters really wanted to get rid of these guys, they would.

[Telly Savalas]

24. Beyond that, it's hard to find good Congresspeople

I want folks like Conyers, Kucinich, Boxer, Feingold, etc. to be able to stay in the legislature as long as they and their constituencies decide. They'd be hard to replace.

Some dimwit like Delay can easily be replaced with another crook. His sort is a dime a dozen.

[Yupster]

27. If we didn't have gerrymandering, I'd agree

with you, but with the districts carved so incumbants will always win, I think you must have term limits.

It useed to be that voters picked their congressman. Now congressmen pick their voters.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. Here is FL we have term limits for state legislators

I can't say that the quality here is any better than other states.

[Democrats_win]

4. What about a constitutional amendment for campaign finance reform?

Only contributions from real people, limits on spending and contributions.

[bluestateguy]

8. I'm not real intersted in campaign finance reform

Let's start by enforcing the laws we have first.

As for limiting spending, a very bad idea. In a presidential election situation that only forces the candidates to reduce the number of states that they can compete in, resulting in a higher number of states that are simply "written off", and the people in those states are basically ignored in the campaign because thet aren't lucky enough to live in Pennsylvania or Ohio. You limit spending then the candidates will have to, out of economic necessity, write off many states in the campaign.

I think contribution limits are fine the way they are now. In fact, I would have it such that presidential nominees should be allowed to use money in addition to their federal matching money in the fall campaign.

I would be OK with free air time for each candidate on the networks, however.

[Dr.Phool]

19. We have term limits in Florida, and it's a disaster!!!

Every few years you get inexperienced legislators, who don't know much about the process, or even how to write a bill. In Florida, they'll introduce a BLANK fucking bill, and allow the lobbyists to fill in their wish lists. You ask them later about a bill they introduced, and they don't know a thing about it.

That's how we got a bill passed last year allowing phone companies to raise rates 20% per year, insane insurance costs, bills forbidding lawsuits against dry-cleaners for polluting your drinking water,and on and on.

Public financing of elections would be much better. And if you think that's too expensive, just look at your phone, energy, and insurance bill and figure it out.

[bunkerbuster1]

5. Only for those Congressmen who supported them

and now, conveeeeniently enough, no longer do.

Like mine, John Linder, who is a LIAR

as covered here:

http://hillbillyragger.blogspot.com/2005/12/john-linder-is-liar.html

[WinkyDink]

6. It's called "democracy".

Vote them out, or not.
If your fellows disagree with you, that's the way it goes.

[Walt Starr]

7. And outlaw being a paid lobbyist

Lobbyists should be only citizens who receive no compensation whatsoever for their lobbying efforts.

At the very least, anybody who has ever held an elected or appointed federal office should be barred for life from being a paid lobbyist.

[ProfessorGAC]

41. There's A Solution In There Somewhere, Walt

Of course, lots of details to be worked out, but lobbying for a cause, and donating to the legislations is unethical on its face. I think that would solve a lot of issues. It reduces the chances that gov't would be for sale.
The Professor

[MADem]

9. No friken WAY

We would lose the likes of Barney Frank and Robert Byrd if that were the case.

What we need are districts that are drawn in realistic fashion, that represent NEIGHBORHOODS and ACTUAL CONSTITUENCIES, not big long noodles that run a hundred miles in one direction and three hundred yards in another, that serve solely to disenfranchise what seem to be populations of "pesky minority" folk by diluting their voting power by chopping up what should be THEIR DISTRICT.

Reform is needed, but limiting choice just seems rather GOP-ish to me....

[Yupster]

28. So Barney Frank could be a

senator for a while, then a governor. Then he could run a company.

He might do more good finding innovative ways to run a company than holding the same seat in congress for his whole adult life.

And no offense to Senator Byrd, but he should retire. He's had a great career, but ninety years old is too old to be making important decisions on the future of our country.

[MADem]

32. I'll take Robert Byrd over Howdy Doody Allen or any GOP thug any day

As long as he can wave his pocket Constitution and warn that Senate body that it is the MOST IMPORTANT document in our land, he is all right with me.

We are just gonna have to agree to differ on this issue. If the people want the person, and the voting is fair and square, they should be represented by their choice. YMMV.

[Jayhawk Lib]

10. The existing laws are not effective.

What makes anyone think new laws would be more effective?

[Rowdyboy]

11. No. Not now, not ever. Elections are "term limits".....

[bluestateguy]

12. And guess what? Blunt, DeLay, Hastert and Ney are still around.

They just keep coming back, again and again and again and again.

Somebody has to come out and say it: the American people just aren't all that bright. They are very child-like when it comes to political intelligence.

[Rowdyboy]

16. Sorry, that ones just non-negotiable to me....I will NEVER support

term limits. It was wrong and undemocratic when Republicans first proposed it and its wrong when progressives advocate it.

"Somebody has to come out and say it: the American people just aren't all that bright. They are very child-like when it comes to political intelligence."

You have a right to your opinion. I have a right to disagree-very strongly in fact. And regardless of how bright anybody in particular is, their vote counts every bit as much as yours.

[MADem]

33. With any luck, they'll be around for a long time--in the prison yard n/t

[soothsayer]

13. Yes, one term only. Mebbe elected by lottery (like jury duty, draft).

In Virginny, guvs get one term. It's PLENTY.

[bluestateguy]

14. That might be a bit of an overkill

I actually think the one term limit in VA is bad: democratic accountability requires that these folks face the voters for what they do in office. I prefer a two term limit.

I'd say four terms for the house and two for the senate.

[Earth_First]

15. I haven't seen a dead heat issue here in awhile...

[John Q. Citizen]

17. I share your concern for the overwhelming

power of incumbency in our system. I don't agree with your solution, though.


Their already are term limits. 2 years for the House, 6 for the Senate.
Is the goal of term limits is to make sure the level of expertise in congress is low? When
no one has any deep experience, it gets very sketchy very quick.

I live in a term limit state, and it hasn't resulted in great reform or change, just the opposite. In fact, good long term representatives have been replaced by well financed mouthpieces for fascism in many cases.

A much better solution to the problems of entrenched incumbency is to pro-actively and effectively lower the money bar to candidacy and to reform the apportionment process.

Those two suggestions are pro-democracy and would result in far more meaningful turnover than so called term limits.

So called term limits are anti-democratic in that they deny the voters the opportunity to return good legislators to office. We the people need a good way to retain good legislators in office and to change poor legislators in a fair election contest.

[bluestateguy]

18. See, I think experience is overrated

I don't think serving in Congress is rocket science.

DeLay, Hastert, Cunningham and Gingrich all had experience. Lots of it. On our side of the aisle, so did James Traficant and Bob Torricelli.

And anyway, you'd still have congressional candidates coming from the same place as they come now: state legislatures, city councils and mayorships, all of which are a good proving ground for service in Congress. The difference is that you would have more rotation in office.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. So called term limits definatly aren't rocket science

The fact is the races with the most money usually win, something like 87% of the time. So called term limits does nothing to address this buying of our political system.

Besides, I'd rather term limit any of the people you mention through indictments or beating them on a level campaign playing field. You would deny the good people of those districts the pleasure of voting the bastards out.

Don't limit my democracy, bsg, I'm glad Bird is running again.

[last_texas_dem]

20. I oppose them

I agree that the current situation leaves plenty of room for improvement. However, I haven't seen how term limits would make much of a difference. The way I see it, the ideological leanings of Reps and Senators would not change much, and they'd simply be less experienced and less concerned about the longterm effects of their policies (which they already don't seem to be concerned enough about.)

It seems like it would be a good idea to have a regular crop of fresh blood in the House and Senate, with new members being more interested in reform. However, this isn't as positive if it's a crop of right-wing "reformers" (as it might likely be in today's political climate). Consider the last major crop of "fresh blood" in the House- the Repug Class of '95: newcomers, mostly right-wing ideologues, many with little to no prior political experience, many interested in reforms of some sort, and many voluntarily pledged to limit their terms in office (though many also broke these pledges). The combination of their ideological extremism and lack of experience in government (unwillingness to understand the necessity of compromise) combined to become a major factor in the government shutting down, etc.

However, I would support a nationwide effort to improve state redistricting procedures, by taking them out of the state legislatures and putting them in the hands of less partisan bodies. (The problem with this ever happening, of course, is that it would have to be done state-by-state.)

[bluestateguy]

21. kick

Weigh in...

[Beacho]

22. We already have term limits

They're called elections

[Yupster]

29. Yeah and in my district no Democratic congressional candidate

has gotten 30 % in a decade. Some elections.

[bluestateguy]

42. Like Yupster said

Elections for the House, especially, have become pretty meaningless in most cases over the last several years. Just try running as a Democrat against an entrenched Republican incumbent in the Houston or Dallas suburbs. Usually, the Republican just ignores the Democratic challenger and wins with 70+% of the vote.

[Bill McBlueState]

43. Would term limits help, though?

The Republican party would just find someone else to win 70+% of the vote. It's the sketchy shape of the district that causes that, not the particular candidate.

[B Calm]

23. Ex President Clinton in 2008

[eridani]

26. Rather have campaign finance reform

Also IRV and ballot access reform.

[Tiggeroshii]

30. no term limits helps the congressman feel they can afford

to be totally oblivious to common known current events and controversies. term limits will help ensure they keep on tack and do not tire of it...

[ISUGRADIA]

31. Christ, the presidency is already too powerful.

Let's just give more power to it by taking away one strength Congress has that of institutional memory.

[mantrid]

34. I tend to think they're a pretty good idea

Term limits for congress were an important plank in Chavez's reforms in Venezuela, helping to break the stranglehold of the old oligarchs entrenched there. I think 6 terms for the house and 3 for the senate would be reasonable, allowing for both a steady flow of new blood and a degree of stability. A single term (at most) really should be enough for a congressman to learn the ropes, and another five terms after that should be enough to compile a solid body of legislative achievement. Anyone not capable of doing either wont make an effective representative and doesn't really belong in congress anyway.

[newyawker99]

36. Hi mantrid!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[mantrid]

37. Thanks!

:hi:

[bluestateguy]

38. kick

:kick:

[dragonlady]

39. If I want to vote for Feingold three times for Senate

I should be able to do that (and gladly did). So I vote no on term limits.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. No. It's up to the people to decide who they want to represent them.

Same goes for the 2 term limit on the presidency.

[bluestateguy]

44. kick

:kick:

[Toots]

46. Most of the people being indicted in the Abromoff scandal are staffers

Term Limits would give staffers more power than any Congressman. Kind of like how a Sargent Major has more power than a second lieutenant. Also they are totally behind the scenes and are not accountable to the people although in todays world neither are Congressmen...

[bluestateguy]

47. kick

:kick: