our only hope is term limits. let's start by making a list of folks runnin for office who support it

[frigidweirdo]

step by step, people!

Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia supports term limits.

he's running for US Senate.

help me out, here.

let's list these folks then support their campaigns in every way we can!

DRAIN. DA. FUCKIN. SWAMP.

Agreed. This is the only way this madness starts getting fixed. Elect those who support strict Term Limits.
.

And how will it help anything? People will be even more for the gravy train. They know they have limited time, make as much money in that time as possible.

 

[Mac1958]

step by step, people!

Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia supports term limits.

he's running for US Senate.

help me out, here.

let's list these folks then support their campaigns in every way we can!

DRAIN. DA. FUCKIN. SWAMP.

Agreed. This is the only way this madness starts getting fixed. Elect those who support strict Term Limits.
.

And how will it help anything? People will be even more for the gravy train. They know they have limited time, make as much money in that time as possible.

Because we could combine it with publicly-funded elections and a Balanced Budget Amendment.

That would change the motivations and behaviors of these people virtually overnight.

We can choose to change the system, or we can choose to just keep bending over and taking it.
.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

the ONLY way to set term limits for US congress is an amendment to the constitution

I don't think so. I don't believe the US Constitution prohibits term limits. However I think we need to amend it so that representatives are voted on at the same time.

The real problem is that even good people who get elected are poisoned by the swamp once they get comfortable, then they become part of it. If we elected all 100 Senators in one election, same with Congress, we would have the ability to vote them all (or most of them) out so there would be little contamination of the new representatives.

just like the president congress is set by the constitution, the presidential term and how often he can serve is set by the constitution and so is congress. you want to limit that? you need an amendment.

 

[rightwinger]

If anyone believes a Senator or Congressman should not run after two terms......stop voting for them

If enough people feel like you, they will get the message

 

[frigidweirdo]

step by step, people!

Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia supports term limits.

he's running for US Senate.

help me out, here.

let's list these folks then support their campaigns in every way we can!

DRAIN. DA. FUCKIN. SWAMP.

Agreed. This is the only way this madness starts getting fixed. Elect those who support strict Term Limits.
.

And how will it help anything? People will be even more for the gravy train. They know they have limited time, make as much money in that time as possible.

Because we could combine it with publicly-funded elections and a Balanced Budget Amendment.

That would change the motivations and behaviors of these people virtually overnight.

We can choose to change the system, or we can choose to just keep bending over and taking it.
.

Ah, so you're saying that it would only work if you implement it with other things that might work.... so why not just do the thing that you think would work?

Look at PR.

German federal election, 2017 - Wikipedia

There are 6 parties in government.

The people get to vote FPTP and PR on the same day at the same time.

8% of people chose to vote for the larger parties with FPTP and the smaller parties with PR. Why? Because FPTP is negative voting. Sometimes you don't vote for who you want to be elected, but you often vote for someone who might beat the person you DON'T want to be elected.

The people know that PR will decide the total outcome, so they know they have a freer vote.

Look at this.

CDU/CSU gained 37.2% of the votes in FPTP but 77% of the seat.
The FDP gained 7% of the votes in FPTP but 0% of the seats.

So, under a US system 37% of people would decide everything for everyone, while the 7% of people who voted for the FDP would get no representation simply because they couldn't get enough support in one small area, but COULD get 7% of the vote nationwide.

Is that fair?

But under PR the CDU/CSU got 33% of the vote, a loss of 4% and gained 246 seats out of 709, much, much closer to the number of votes they got.

In the US people don't bother voting for third parties because they KNOW they can't win in the local area, so they vote for who they DON'T want to get in.

The main parties should be getting less than 66% of the vote, but in the US they get 95% of the vote.

It leads to two parties, no oversight, partisan politics and complete nonsense day in, day out.

 

[Desperado]

step by step, people!

Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia supports term limits.

he's running for US Senate.

help me out, here.

let's list these folks then support their campaigns in every way we can!

DRAIN. DA. FUCKIN. SWAMP.

Let's take that concept and apply it to the private market.

A state creates a law that no company can keep an employee more than six years. It matters not what kind of work they do, how honest they are, how much profit they make for the company, they only have six years before they must resign and let somebody else take their place.

In contrast, a neighboring state keeps things the way they are now. They don't interfere with who a company keeps and who they get rid of. It's based on how good of work they do. Their merits are rewarded by their employer.

Which state do you suppose would have the most successful companies?

Term limits are not the solution. Why should we get rid of the few great representatives that may be in there now fighting for the better of the country? We actually do have term limits, and they are set by the voters. The voters determine how long a representative is allowed to serve.

Unfortunately there are no honest or moral people that are politicians. Maybe they were before getting elected, but once in office it is downhill from there. The longer they are in the more despicable they become. This not only applies to politicians but to judges as well. So by limiting their exposure by term limits, we limit their corruption. Now a question, those against term limits, would you be opposed to dropping the 2 term limit for the President?

 

[Mac1958]

What amazes me is how many people are just fine with the system the way it is, thinking we can change these behaviors without changing the system.

An incumbent, for one example, has a significant edge over any challenger because they've had time to build their power/influence/fundraising base. The longer they're in office, the more powerful that base is, and it has little to do with the actual quality of the incumbent.

How is that not obvious?


.

 

[CowboyTed]

step by step, people!

Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia supports term limits.

he's running for US Senate.

help me out, here.

let's list these folks then support their campaigns in every way we can!

DRAIN. DA. FUCKIN. SWAMP.

Agreed. This is the only way this madness starts getting fixed. Elect those who support strict Term Limits.
.

And how will it help anything? People will be even more for the gravy train. They know they have limited time, make as much money in that time as possible.

Because we could combine it with publicly-funded elections and a Balanced Budget Amendment.

That would change the motivations and behaviors of these people virtually overnight.

We can choose to change the system, or we can choose to just keep bending over and taking it.
.

Ah, so you're saying that it would only work if you implement it with other things that might work.... so why not just do the thing that you think would work?

Look at PR.

German federal election, 2017 - Wikipedia

There are 6 parties in government.

The people get to vote FPTP and PR on the same day at the same time.

8% of people chose to vote for the larger parties with FPTP and the smaller parties with PR. Why? Because FPTP is negative voting. Sometimes you don't vote for who you want to be elected, but you often vote for someone who might beat the person you DON'T want to be elected.

The people know that PR will decide the total outcome, so they know they have a freer vote.

Look at this.

CDU/CSU gained 37.2% of the votes in FPTP but 77% of the seat.
The FDP gained 7% of the votes in FPTP but 0% of the seats.

So, under a US system 37% of people would decide everything for everyone, while the 7% of people who voted for the FDP would get no representation simply because they couldn't get enough support in one small area, but COULD get 7% of the vote nationwide.

Is that fair?

But under PR the CDU/CSU got 33% of the vote, a loss of 4% and gained 246 seats out of 709, much, much closer to the number of votes they got.

In the US people don't bother voting for third parties because they KNOW they can't win in the local area, so they vote for who they DON'T want to get in.

The main parties should be getting less than 66% of the vote, but in the US they get 95% of the vote.

It leads to two parties, no oversight, partisan politics and complete nonsense day in, day out.

Frigid,

The German system is a Party List, I wouldn't be the biggest fan but better than the US system...
Electoral system of Germany - Wikipedia

I would probably be plucking for the Irish System...

Here is an example of election for EU Parliament...

Dublin (European Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia

First the Quota is calculated on the bottom by this formula - (No. of votes/(No. of Seats +1) +1...
If you reach quota your excess is shared out... then they start eliminating one by one from the bottom (sometimes more than one when candidates have such low votes they can't change the order)..

This is a three seat constituency (in Ireland it is either 3,4 or 5 seat constituencies). Nessa was in 5th place after the first count but as others get eliminated she climbed up.. Eamon was the biggest looser in transfers when Nessa got big transfer from Paul Murphy, that was a geographical transfer rather than idealogical.

ElectionsIreland.org: 2014 Euro - Dublin Count Details

I hope this explains it better?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

the ONLY way to set term limits for US congress is an amendment to the constitution

I don't think so. I don't believe the US Constitution prohibits term limits. However I think we need to amend it so that representatives are voted on at the same time.

The real problem is that even good people who get elected are poisoned by the swamp once they get comfortable, then they become part of it. If we elected all 100 Senators in one election, same with Congress, we would have the ability to vote them all (or most of them) out so there would be little contamination of the new representatives.

just like the president congress is set by the constitution, the presidential term and how often he can serve is set by the constitution and so is congress. you want to limit that? you need an amendment.

I disagree. The Constitution limits what we can do, not permit what we can do. The presidential term is limited by the Constitution, that's why a President can't run more than two times. There is no limitation on Congress, so it could be decided by our legislatures to have such limits. As long as a law doesn't violate the Constitution, such law can be enacted.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

step by step, people!

Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia supports term limits.

he's running for US Senate.

help me out, here.

let's list these folks then support their campaigns in every way we can!

DRAIN. DA. FUCKIN. SWAMP.

Let's take that concept and apply it to the private market.

A state creates a law that no company can keep an employee more than six years. It matters not what kind of work they do, how honest they are, how much profit they make for the company, they only have six years before they must resign and let somebody else take their place.

In contrast, a neighboring state keeps things the way they are now. They don't interfere with who a company keeps and who they get rid of. It's based on how good of work they do. Their merits are rewarded by their employer.

Which state do you suppose would have the most successful companies?

Term limits are not the solution. Why should we get rid of the few great representatives that may be in there now fighting for the better of the country? We actually do have term limits, and they are set by the voters. The voters determine how long a representative is allowed to serve.

Unfortunately there are no honest or moral people that are politicians. Maybe they were before getting elected, but once in office it is downhill from there. The longer they are in the more despicable they become. This not only applies to politicians but to judges as well. So by limiting their exposure by term limits, we limit their corruption. Now a question, those against term limits, would you be opposed to dropping the 2 term limit for the President?

Good question, but presidential terms are limited by the Constitution, so that would have to be amended.

The real problem I see with that is the President has more international dealings than Congress or Senate. It's one thing if our representatives are poisoned by other Americans, and another if our representatives are poisoned by foreign entities.

 

[rightwinger]

What amazes me is how many people are just fine with the system the way it is, thinking we can change these behaviors without changing the system.

An incumbent, for one example, has a significant edge over any challenger because they've had time to build their power/influence/fundraising base. The longer they're in office, the more powerful that base is, and it has little to do with the actual quality of the incumbent.

How is that not obvious?


.

Yes...that is the system and they understand the system

Why do we want to insert someone who is totally clueless on how to get things accomplished?

 

[Mac1958]

What amazes me is how many people are just fine with the system the way it is, thinking we can change these behaviors without changing the system.

An incumbent, for one example, has a significant edge over any challenger because they've had time to build their power/influence/fundraising base. The longer they're in office, the more powerful that base is, and it has little to do with the actual quality of the incumbent.

How is that not obvious?


.

Yes...that is the system and they understand the system

Why do we want to insert someone who is totally clueless on how to get things accomplished?

As compared to whom? An entrenched narcissist?
.

 

[Camp]

Limits will increase corruption to new levels. Elected officials will be rushed to make their bribes and kickbacks as quickly as possible. Lack of experience will be used as an excuse.

 

[rightwinger]

What amazes me is how many people are just fine with the system the way it is, thinking we can change these behaviors without changing the system.

An incumbent, for one example, has a significant edge over any challenger because they've had time to build their power/influence/fundraising base. The longer they're in office, the more powerful that base is, and it has little to do with the actual quality of the incumbent.

How is that not obvious?


.

Yes...that is the system and they understand the system

Why do we want to insert someone who is totally clueless on how to get things accomplished?

As compared to whom? An entrenched narcissist?
.

So we need a new narcissist?

 

[Mac1958]

What amazes me is how many people are just fine with the system the way it is, thinking we can change these behaviors without changing the system.

An incumbent, for one example, has a significant edge over any challenger because they've had time to build their power/influence/fundraising base. The longer they're in office, the more powerful that base is, and it has little to do with the actual quality of the incumbent.

How is that not obvious?


.

Yes...that is the system and they understand the system

Why do we want to insert someone who is totally clueless on how to get things accomplished?

As compared to whom? An entrenched narcissist?
.

So we need a new narcissist?

Well, as I said: We can choose to keep up putting with the way things are, if we want to.

Why we would want to is a mystery to me, but we can certainly do that.
.

 

[rightwinger]

So you have been working on your job for ten years. You understand the job, what works, what doesn't work. You have developed a working relationship with your fellow employees and customers. You understand the competition

Your boss tells you that you have been on the job long enough.....time to give someone else a chance

 

[rightwinger]

What amazes me is how many people are just fine with the system the way it is, thinking we can change these behaviors without changing the system.

An incumbent, for one example, has a significant edge over any challenger because they've had time to build their power/influence/fundraising base. The longer they're in office, the more powerful that base is, and it has little to do with the actual quality of the incumbent.

How is that not obvious?


.

Yes...that is the system and they understand the system

Why do we want to insert someone who is totally clueless on how to get things accomplished?

As compared to whom? An entrenched narcissist?
.

So we need a new narcissist?

Well, as I said: We can choose to keep up putting with the way things are, if we want to.

Why we would want to is a mystery to me, but we can certainly do that.
.

If I am no longer satisfied with the representative I have, I can pick a new one

I have done it before

 

[Dragonlady]

step by step, people!

Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia supports term limits.

he's running for US Senate.

help me out, here.

let's list these folks then support their campaigns in every way we can!

DRAIN. DA. FUCKIN. SWAMP.

Yes let’s limit the amount of time people can hold office so that once they learn how government works and have the ability to get things done, they’re gone.

What successful business fires their longest serving and best employees every 6 years and replaced them with people who don’t have the first clue how their business operates?

 

[Dragonlady]

step by step, people!

Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia supports term limits.

he's running for US Senate.

help me out, here.

let's list these folks then support their campaigns in every way we can!

DRAIN. DA. FUCKIN. SWAMP.

Let's take that concept and apply it to the private market.

A state creates a law that no company can keep an employee more than six years. It matters not what kind of work they do, how honest they are, how much profit they make for the company, they only have six years before they must resign and let somebody else take their place.

In contrast, a neighboring state keeps things the way they are now. They don't interfere with who a company keeps and who they get rid of. It's based on how good of work they do. Their merits are rewarded by their employer.

Which state do you suppose would have the most successful companies?

Term limits are not the solution. Why should we get rid of the few great representatives that may be in there now fighting for the better of the country? We actually do have term limits, and they are set by the voters. The voters determine how long a representative is allowed to serve.

We don’t often agree on much but post is absolutely brilliant. Well done Ray!

 

[bripat9643]

step by step, people!

Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia supports term limits.

he's running for US Senate.

help me out, here.

let's list these folks then support their campaigns in every way we can!

DRAIN. DA. FUCKIN. SWAMP.

You're naive if you think Congress will ever vote to limit their own terms. The article V convention is the only way we will ever get any meaningful reform of the federal government.