Changes to Presidential/Congressional terms to decrease gridlock in the US Government.

Great Debates
1

Whereas the technological advancements over the last 225 years have sped up the pace at which society as a whole moves, and

Whereas this speeded up society has necessitated members of the House of Representatives to be constantly in re-election mode, and

Whereas Presidential election talk for the next cycle begins immediately after the inauguration of the sitting President, and

Whereas these factors have made the business of running the country take a secondary role to the business of getting re-elected.

Be it Resolved that (1) The lengths of terms for members of the House of Representatives be lengthened to 8 years, with a maximum of two consecutive terms,

(2) The terms of Senators be lengthened to 8 years, with a term limit of two consecutive terms, and

(3) The term of President be lengthened to 8 years, without the ability to ever be re-elected.

Furthermore, the terms of Senators and Representatives be set so that they do not end during a Presidential election year, as well as all of the terms of Representatives in any State expire in years that are not the end of the term of either Senator from that State, so that in every even numbered year, each voter only votes for President, or Senator, or Representative, but never more then one, unless there is a special election to fill a vacant seat.

I really think something needs to be done so that the Government is put back into the business of running the country, as opposed to constantly being in re-election mode, and I think that lengthening terms, but imposing limits would do this. I also believe that having voters only have to make one choice for federal office every two years will decrease voter apathy, because there won’t be dozens of voices cackling for months about why the other guy is a piece of dung. What say you all?

Mods, as I intend this to be a Great Debate about Elections, I wasn’t sure which forum to put this in. Please move as necessary.

2

I’m all for making changes to put more emphasis on governing over getting re-elected, but what if we DON’T LIKE the way a particular senator or representative is governing? We’re stuck with him/ her for 8 years.

The best way to check our officials is a fully informed and active electorate who vote at least 80% in every election. So I would actually move for some kind of penalties for not voting. I think it’s come to that.

3

Yup. Despite what some might say, both parties have not been the cause of the recent gridlock. And the gridlock to come…

Why change the Constitution because some folks aren’t bright enough to realize they need to get out & vote against the Republicans, even if the Democratic candidates doesn’t make their nipples tingle?

4

I don’t think term limits are a good idea in principle. Giants like Ted Kennedy wouldn’t have had a chance to shine under such a system.

The problem isn’t in the term limits, gridlock is here because one party has decided that it can simply refuse to cooperate with the president of the other party.

5

But what about the other problem the OP is trying to address-constant election mode? If longer terms isn’t the solution, what is?

6

An informed, active, electorate that penalizes candidates for excessive campaigning.

7

I suggest that no candidate be allowed to start fundraising or campaigning until one year prior to the election, maybe 1 1/2 years for presidents.

8

I suggest there is already a workaround that problem-Using your rules hundreds of millions would still be spent without any involvement of the candidate whatsoever via PACs, and incumbents cannot be stopped from giving self-serving speeches and acting favorably towards certain groups as long contributions as not directly asked for and directly given.

9

Yeah, that’s a bug, not a feature. I think we’d need an amendment to address it, limiting the activity of PACs as well.

10

Free Speech! Free Speech! [insert a dozen rolleyes smilies here]

11

As long as we are going to tweak the system. Senators have population based districts. California having two Senators and California having two Senators is just ridiculous. President one six year term. I’d stick with two years for the House. 4 or 6 for the Senate

My reason, I think we need that amount of turnover. The citizenry can get very mobilized by certain issues. If they are in massive opposition to an office holder or a direction among office holders, Anything more than 6 years is to much. Philippines has 1 term six years Presidency I believe. I think the whole political landscape would be better if every President taking office from this day forward didn’t have to concern themselves with their personal reelection.

12

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]

I suggest that no candidate be allowed to start fundraising or campaigning until one year prior to the election, maybe 1 1/2 years for presidents.
[/QUOTE]
Which increases the advantage for incumbents, who can get publicity for free or at taxpayer expense.

Regards,
Shodan

13

I’ve heard a couple of interviews recently that make me think the problems are actually the result of 2 things. First, we are self sorting into enclaves of like-minded people. Because we are such a mobile society, it is much more likely that we will not live in the place we were born, enduring ( :wink: ) the presence of people with different opinions and coming to sufficient compromises that we can live together. Second, and following from the first, we have district-based voting that is a huge temptation for party officials (on both sides) to manipulate with gerrymandering. Thus we have mostly uncompetitive seats that don’t really require moderate candidates. Term-limits don’t solve this problem, since, despite our lip service to “voting for the person, not the party”, the reality of the voting system means that party is everything when it comes to actual governing (more so for the legislature, but it applies to the executive as well).

So, what would make it better?

Get rid of the Senate altogether, or make it more small-d democratic. It’s ridiculous that small population states like Rhode Island (D), Wyoming (R), Delaware (D), and Alaska (R) have the same number of Senators as California (D) and Texas (R) with 10 or 20 times the population. Triple the number of Senators and distribute them by population. Still not very democratic, but better.

Increase the number of Representatives, also by a factor of 3. The average population represented by a Rep is something like 3/4 of a million. Smaller districts would make for better constituent services, more responsiveness, and more difficulty in gerrymandering.

Speaking of which…Either require districts to be drawn by non-partisan panels, or eliminate them altogether and move to at-large proportional representation. The latter would allow bigger districts to continue (with perhaps 3 Representatives per district), but make it much more difficult to have an all-R or all-D district.

Finally, get rid of the electoral college and move to direct elections for President.

14

None of the proposed term limit changes address gridlock at all. They have no possible connection to gridlock. It doesn’t matter how long or short an official’s term is, or what year they get elected. If we really want to get rid of gridlock, the simple solution is to scrap independent election of the executive, and have the legislature vote for the executive. This is done in most countries, and it means that whatever party is in control of the legislature also controls the executive power, which means the instant end of gridlock.

Forget all this nonsense about term limits. With a unified system the party in power is absolutely responsible for all decisions. But checks and balances! What about checks and balances? Checks and balances is just a less pejorative term for “gridlock”. When an independent branch of government blocks an action that you disapprove of, you call that checks and balances. When they block an action you approve of, you call that gridlock.

Gridlock is a word that means that government action depends on the assent of two or more branches of government, but those entities are independently elected and don’t agree. To get rid of gridlock you have to get rid of independently elected officials. Instead, you vote for the party you want in power, and the party that can form a majority gets power. If the idea that a party with a majority can implement whatever policies it likes is frightening to you, then you’re not against gridlock.

If the problem is that one party or another always favors stuff you don’t like and blocks stuff you do like, and that party sometimes controls one or more branches of government, then your problem is not with gridlock your problem is with the blockheads in Party X. And the solution to this is not to make gridlock easier, it is to stop electing blockheads.

15

Implying gridlock is negative.

I don’t see what this changes. Instead of four years of Hillary hype there’d be eight. If you want to end the issues you outline you’d have to ban political advertising and/or move to public funding of elections. Maybe stricter anti-corruption practices.

So you want informed and active. To get this, you want to make everyone vote against their will. The mind boggles at the contradictions.

Do you think the great unwashed masses who don’t vote would vote for your side, if only they had to vote for someone at the point of a gun? That’s the only way I can understand the compulsory voting crowd, who as far as I can see trend technocratic lib.

I’ve never seen anyone describe a difference between a knowledgeable citizen voting for candidate A versus a complete doofus voting the same. The latter is supposed to be a terrible injustice, somehow.

16

I’m not sure adjusting term length will help - you’d simply be trading one perceived set of problems for another. I suggest instead that the management of elections be done by a nonpartisan government agency, who will be responsible for drawing district boundaries (based to the maximum extent possible on population density and convenience rather than socioeconomics), maintaining voter rolls and supervising polling stations. Having these currently under the control of elected officials and members of political parties is a blatant conflict of interest.

17

No, that is a terrible idea. If you don’t care which candidate gets elected, forcing you to choose one is going to skew the results. There is no reason why the guy lucky enough to have his name listed first should win the election just because his name is listed first, but I can guarantee that he’d get more than his fair share of the votes from people who don’t want to be there.

18

I have a different take on the problem. A National vote on the party leaders in congress.

Every Presidential Election the four party leaders of congress face a yeah or nay vote by the entire country. So four example the last presidential cycle ballot would have had four additional questions.
[ul]
[li]Do you favor John Boehner as Majority leader of Congress?[/li][li]Do you favor Nancy Pelosi as Minority leader of Congress?[/li][li]Do you favor Harry Reid as Majority leader of the Senate?[/li][li]Do you favor Mitch McConnell as Minority leader of the Senate?[/li][/ul]

Who of the above get a majority vote of yea, they keep their jobs.

Who of the above get a majority vote of nay, then are removed from their Majority/Minority position and prohibited from seeking the position again.

This would solve the Congressional and Senate issues better than term limits. At least IMHO

19

Why should the minority leader require majority support to keep their job? If they had majority support, they’d be the majority leader. Allowing the majority party to choose who their opponents’ leaders will be is ridiculous.

20

All Senators and Representatives should have 4-year terms.