What do you think of this political term idea?
Asked by
tedd (
14078
)
May 9th, 2010
A lot of people in our country (the USA) often complain about our terms in this country. Many people complain that politicians are forced to deal with continuously “campaigning” for office, which effects their decisions whilst in office. A politician for example might vote against a tax increase that they know the country needs, because it will be used against them in their upcoming reelection bid. Others complain that spending too much time in Washington and away from their home states and constituents leads politicians to forget their ways and become corrupt by big business or “beltway politics.” Of note is that in the upcoming mid-term 2010 elections the Tea party and many others are advocating throwing out EVERY politician and replacing them with new people. Ideas of limiting politicians to one term have been floated before (and now) but never successful.
So my idea is this. Rather than limiting politicians to one term, or two terms (as with presidents), and rather than allowing many of them to run continuously forever (such as how senators have no term limits)..... is how about we enact a ban on consecutive terms? In other words when you get elected, you don’t have to worry about “campaigning” with your political choices, because you will be unable to run for immediate re-election. You would be able to run again in the next election (after you leave office) though. This would give your policies and choices time to be reflected on (you can’t really pass judgement on many political choices until years later), and if people later decided they were good choices you could be elected back into office later.
We could add some kind of clause where if 75% of the population or something along those lines voted to allow you to run for office again, you can run again. That way popular presidents or senators could remain in office, assuming the vast majority of the populace approves of them.
What do you think?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
13 Answers
I think that if we enact strict public financing with no donations or Corporate money, we will end up with a clean legislature for the first time in our history. That, of course, is why it will never happen.
That doesn’t really solve the problem, though. While they might not be thinking about the next election, they will, ultimately, be thinking about getting reelected eventually, which will influence their decisions anyway. With the incumbency rate in this country, the second part of your plan would really invalidate the first part. Staggering the elections as you suggest wouldn’t really accomplish anything. In order to enact the kind of change you wish to see, what really would have to happen is the banning of private donations in elections, and switching to an all-public financing scenario, which won’t happen until the Supreme Court decision that states that money equals speech is reversed.
I don’t believe the USA is ready to demand the kind of reform for which you and those who answered above are calling. Those who buy and control politicians set most of the policy or use their puppets to block any change they oppose.
Until Americans really care about the endemic corruption in government and start demanding that they be represented by those whom they elect, the US will continue to pretend to be a democracy instead of an oligarchy run by corrupt corporate interests.
Keep promoting your ideas and maybe someday Americans will want their country back.
Then you’ll get griping when a really good, really popular elected official can’t be elected more than once.
I think that it does not give a politician enough time to get traction, to learn the ropes of the job.
@dpworkin @jkeller87 Agreed campaign finance needs reform, but this is not meant to address that problem. This is more to address politicians “campaigning” continuously rather than doing their jobs.
@Nullo Agreed there as well, which is why we would have to work in some kind of a popularity clause that would allow them to run consecutively so long as a certain percent of their constituents approves of them. The idea being at least a certain amount of the opposition members would have to approve of the job they’re doing.
@marinelife Well if that doesn’t give a politician enough time to get traction, than we’re screwed to begin with because one term is often all they have now, they just spend it campaigning . BUT, to try and avoid this problem (and problems like swapping presidents every 4 years and not being consistent), we could lengthen terms at the same time by some period. Maybe a president serves 6 years now, but can’t be elected to consecutive terms.
@tedd Exactly! No need for funds, no need for the never-ending campaign.
A lot of things take longer than a term gives. A constitutional amendment, for example, takes 7 years – longer than any single term can give, and most things depend on a single congressman/president taking the lead on them. Plus, they need to learn the ropes of the job, build up a resume. Just look at the food service industry to see what happens when the turn-over is too high – EVERYONE is incompetent, even the managers.
The problem is less with the individual candidate than with the party. Especially if your plan were to be enacted, then we’d just see people doing things so that their party would get re-elected.
The real problem is that people don’t have the attention span to listen to why things should be done and instead go with extreme ideas like “no taxes.” Seems to me that education is the problem. If we taught people to listen and think critically, we’d have real debate and (hopefully) end up with proper policies. End of pipe dream.
Let me throw this out – would you want a doctor operating who was subject to ‘term limits’ or an experienced surgeon? Experience counts.
In my opinion, it would prevent the progress of the good ones.
Yeah, I know there’s only about 4 good Congressmen and Senators in the whole thing.
I think Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation would help us to elect better quality human beings.
I think more importantly American politics need Democratic reform with more choice, less media propaganda and proportional representation.
I would be interested in seeing the outcome of a sort of political purge every 50 years or so. Scrap all of the politicians, all of the judges, and all but the most basic of legislation, bring in a new bunch, and have them start over. It would be nothing short of an absolute nightmare on the international side of things.
@mammal That has got to be the kindest post that you’ve ever posted!
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
