Two members of the House have proposed that the terms of Congressmen be lengthened from two years to four years. Of course, a constitutional ammendment would be required for this.
According to the story, the reason that Representatives have a shorter term is because, as the sole house elected by the people (which it was at the time), the Reps have to stay true to the will of the people. So by having shorter terms, the Reps would remain accountable to the people.
However, way back in the early days of the Republic, a Rep didn’t have to spend a huge amount of time raising money for an election. Elections were usually small budget affairs. Not so anymore. In 2002, Reps spent an average of just under $900,000 to win their seats. Because it now costs big money to keep a seat in the House, Reps spend a lot of time away from Capitol Hill raising money. House business suffers because of absent Reps.
I’m not sure that I have an answer to this. Firstly, the need to keep Reps “honest” to the will of the people is a bit lessened nowadays, since the Senate is also popularly elected, a situation that did not exist for the first century and a half of Congress. But, if the Senate can be a more senior and deliberative body, because it’s members have six years “safety,” do we want to create a “mini-senate” in the House by insulating the Reps similarly?
Or might the solution be to limit the amount of money a Rep’s campaign can spend? Impose a cap on how much can be spent on a House race and keep the Reps in Washington?
Personally, my gut tells me that this idea is wrong. Reps should be there for two years, and that they should, in this manner be held accountable to the people of their districts. What’s your feeling on the matter?
So what if it would require a Constitutional amendment? So would changing the length of a Representative’s term. Of course, the latter would be more likely to pass, since tyrants and greedy bastards would be happy to vote for anything that would increase their power.
I think it would tend to weaken the House, even more in favor of the Senate. With that much turnover, reps could likely be influenced more easily by lobbyists who would have more knowledge about how to get things done.
There is some advantage to having a few veteran lawmakers around.
What I meant was there is nothing simple about a constituational amendment. Especially one that certainly would not pass. It’s that crazy Freedom of Speech thingy, you know.
Color me against this idea as well. The legalized bribery known as “campaign finance” is an affront to democracy. It should be reformed not used as an excuse to further insulate politicians from those they should be accountable to.