Should we lengthen terms of legislators, presidents?

[Skip Intro]

Here me out. A six year term for presidents, six year term for senators, three year term for house members. Somewhere in the middle, after the last campaign and before starting on the next, we might actually get some honest governance...

:shrug:

[dkf]

1. Interesting idea. I would be open to it.

Maybe 4 year terms for reps.

[tridim]

2. The money people will never let it happen

It represents loss of profit.

[baldguy]

3. You want honest govt? Take the corporate money out of elections.

Once we stop offering up our representatives to the highest bidder, they'll have to compete for votes with ideas instead of sound bites.

[InvisibleTouch]

4. I'm not so much for lengthening terms, but would like to do away with term limits.

If someone is doing a good job, they should be allowed to be re-elected indefinitely. Having them come up for re-election every few years gives the opportunity to boot them out if they're doing a bad job, but I don't see any reason to kick out someone who's being effective, just on a technicality.

[atreides1]

6. But there is a down side

The voters define who is doing a good job...has McCain really been doing a good job for Arizona?

[InvisibleTouch]

7. True, there's a risk...

...but I tend to think it would balance out. No doubt that some legislators would keep getting re-elected by their crazy constituents, but some who are really doing a good job for their people would also keep getting re-elected and thus able to continue to do a good job. The only question is whether it's a beneficial trade-off, overall.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. No one is going to change Constitution to do this...

and there is not other way as these terms of office are set by the Constitution.

[Laf.La.Dem.]

8. Bush for TWELVE YEARS!!

no - no - no

[Hippo_Tron]

15. Bush would have handidly lost re-election in 2008 if he'd tried to run again

Of course if we're doing counter-factuals, then Clinton would probably have won a third term in 2000. I doubt he would've tried for a 4th term in 2004, but he might have won again. With the crap economy he probably would've stepped aside in 2008.

There are plenty of countries where their chief executive is not term limited and they don't stay in office forever. Washington was right to set the two term precedent for fear of the President becoming a king when our political system was in its infancy. But we have a mature political system today and we can handle Presidents serving three or four terms without fear of them becoming kings.

[Lurks Often]

21. You need to read your history

George Washington chose to limit himself to two 4 year terms and every President up to FDR chose to follow that precedent. It wasn't until FDR (rightly or wrongly) chose to run for 4 consecutive terms did Congress put in the 8 year term.

From Wikipedia: The Twenty-second Amendment, adopted in 1951, prohibits anyone from being elected to the presidency for a third full term.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. From where in my post did you imply that I wasn't aware of that fact?

As I said, Washington set a two term "precedent". I didn't say that he took any legal action. He wouldn't have been capable of doing that anyway since term limits were enacted by constitutional amendment and the President has no power in the amendment process.

[Lurks Often]

33. You're right, I mis-read your post somehow. Sorry nt

[SpartanDem]

9. For reps definately

having an election every two years is unproductive a soon you get in office you start planning for your next election.

[dmr]

10. Exactly! Look at those two knuckleheads who had a fund-raiser before

they were even sworn into office!

Well, they did raise they're hands for the oath to the TV. :rofl:

[MadBadger]

11. I believe in lengthening House Terms and thats it

2 years leads to them constantly preparing for reelection.

[golfguru]

12. The best way to clean up corruption in congress is TERM LIMITS

No one needs to be in congress longer than 12 years.
SO 2 terms for senators (many governors have 2 term limits)
and 3 terms of 4 years each for House reps. This 2 year term
is ridiculously short. Makes them operate in constant re-election mode.

The president is just fine the way it is. It has too much power to be in
office longer than 8 years.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. It's also a great way to give lobbyists further control over the system

It takes years for one to become a good legislator. A congress of neophytes will be even more susceptible to the influence of lobbyists than even the current congress.

Instead of term limits we need spending limits on campaigns so that challengers are on a more equal footing with incumbents. Let the voters decide when it's time for legislators to stay and go.

[golfguru]

24. Legislators will be less under the influence of lobbyists with shorter terms

for this reason....the lobbyists will not invest big money on term
limited legislators. SOme of the biggest campaign cash goes to congress
critters who are in safe districts for a long time.

The long term congress critters get all the important committee assignments
and chairmanships and therefore corporations and even foreign countries send
a lot of cash to them.

[Forkboy]

25. They'd just dump more cash into the system for the shorter term buyoff.

Anyone who can be bought for 4 years can surely be bought for 2. :shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

28. It will also be easier to buy them off with lucrative job opportunities

If you're term limited to 12 years, you're going to spend a lot more time thinking about what you're going to do in 12 years.

[golfguru]

30. The committee & sub-committee CHAIRS wield far more power

and they get those positions with SENIORITY. These congress
critters have been the recipients of some of the largest cash
through the years. The longer they serve, the more powerful they
become and more useful to the lobbyists.

[rug]

13. No. There should be a binding vote of confidence halfway through the term.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. I kind of like this idea combined with longer term limits

Consider that if we had a binding confidence vote on both the Congress and the President after a year. It would certainly give them the incentive to hurry the hell up and start fulfilling their campaign promises.

It would also incentivize blue dog types to fall in line during the first year. Because if the party's agenda doesn't pass then they will have to stand for election right away. If it passes, they get another three years before they have to run again.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Representatives should definitely have a four year term

Two year terms were meant to put them in constant re-election mode, which made sense in 1789. But in today's world, where the single most effective thing you can do to get re-elected is sit in a room and dial for dollars, it distracts legislators from actually legislating.

[Autumn]

17. No. Shorten them. Politicians are

like babies diapers, they should be changed, often.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. That's a clever slogan but not really a good argument

Unless of course, we're talking specifically about David Vitter. Then it's a really clever slogan and an even better argument.

[Autumn]

31. There should be very short terms of office.

Personally I would rather that our leaders be selected by something like a lottery. In for a year then out. I am sick of these politicians who spend a ton of money just to get in and feather their nests, do favors for the corporations who install them while we suckers vote for them and they ignore our needs and the needs of our Country. :shrug:

[Forkboy]

18. The sci-fi author Kim Stanley Robinson, in his book Red Mars, proposed drafting politicians.

One would have to read the book for the full argument, but it was a good one, and one I find myself thinking about ever since reading about it.

[boppers]

20. We should be able to vote them out whenever we want.

No terms, no campaigns, and every day is an election day.

What other jobs are based on a year-long (or more) public "job interview", followed by a guaranteed job, no matter how bad your performance is, or how craven your behavior is.

[budkin]

23. Hell, no. And there need to be term limits added to Congress

[cherokeeprogressive]

26. Not for a single minute.

[harun]

27. If we can't fix campaign finance, we might have to go this route. Although the chances

of them voting to implement it are about as good as campaign finance reform.

[Ter]

32. No, but I must say, two year terms for House members is absurd

It should have been four from the start.

[Unvanguard]

34. House elections should be every four years and coincide with a presidential election.

Hence, less of an "enthusiasm gap" and a better opportunity to actually get things done.

The Senate should just be abolished.

[rasputin1952]

35. Term limits are already in place, we call it voting...

If we had 100% of voter registration/turnout, results would be far different. We Americans are remarkably apathetic at how we allow people to unchallenged so often.

[avaistheone1]

36. God NO!

We should have the ability to recall our Senators if they are not performing as expected.

[NorthCarolina]

37. I would rather Term Limit them all. nt