Term Limits.. it's time has come?

[bripat9643]

Regardless of the choices they were presented with, they could have made better choices.

FDR, Truman, LBJ, Carter, Bush Sr., Bush Jr, Obama.

They all suck.

Proving that effective party leadership does not translate into having the best intentions for the American People.

A politician with good intentions is as unthinkable as a liberal who understands economics.

 

[idb]

I always interpret calls for term limits as an acknowledgement that elections are an ineffective method for affecting change. It's important to zero in on why that is and and ask if term limits address or fix those deficiencies. I suspect the answer, in general, is no.

Effecting change is far too easy under our system. That has been its downfall. Almost all the changes have been for the worst.

So...you should be the one to decide who goes into the Senate/Congress/Whitehouse?
If not you who?

You don't agree with democracy?

 

[idb]

Do the results of the last 50 years indicate the voters are capable of choosing people to govern them?

You've done pretty well doncha think?

I've done "pretty well" at what? If you man financially, the answer is I could have done a lot better. I was unemployed for 8 months because of the tech bubble created by that imbecile Clinton.

The collective 'you' I meant.
The US of A.

 

[bripat9643]

So...you should be the one to decide who goes into the Senate/Congress/Whitehouse?
If not you who?

You don't agree with democracy?

What's good about being ruled by the bottom 51% of the population?

Voting should b strictly limited to people who have demonstrated competence and responsibility.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's clearly an elitist concept.
It means you don't trust anyone else to elect a suitable representative.

Do the results of the last 50 years indicate the voters are capable of choosing people to govern them?

I think a better question is: Do the results of the last 50 years indicate voters were presented with adequate choices in candidates by the two party corruption machine?

Have you considered the problem maybe systemic? Most third party candidates are focused on one or maybe two issues. What would a third party offer? Many express a need for a third party, yet never offer what they want in terms of a philosophy.

I'd vote for third party candidates who eschewed bribes; who campaigned on issues and ideas. Of course without feeding the media beast their voices would rarely be heard by anyone out of earshot.

 

[bripat9643]

I've done "pretty well" at what? If you man financially, the answer is I could have done a lot better. I was unemployed for 8 months because of the tech bubble created by that imbecile Clinton.

The collective 'you' I meant.
The US of A.

We've done better than other countries only because the politicians the voters put in office haven't succeeded nearly as fast at destroying the country.,

 

[idb]

Do the results of the last 50 years indicate the voters are capable of choosing people to govern them?

I think a better question is: Do the results of the last 50 years indicate voters were presented with adequate choices in candidates by the two party corruption machine?

Have you considered the problem maybe systemic? Most third party candidates are focused on one or maybe two issues. What would a third party offer? Many express a need for a third party, yet never offer what they want in terms of a philosophy.

I'd vote for third party candidates who eschewed bribes; who campaigned on issues and ideas. Of course without feeding the media beast their voices would rarely be heard by anyone out of earshot.

We were dominated by a two party system for 150 years or so until we changed our voting system to a proportional system about 15 years ago.
We now have about seven parties represented in our parliament.
Some see this as a good thing...others have a different view.

 

[Greenbeard]

So...you should be the one to decide who goes into the Senate/Congress/Whitehouse?
If not you who?

You don't agree with democracy?

What's good about being ruled by the bottom 51% of the population?

Voting should b strictly limited to people who have demonstrated competence and responsibility.

Perhaps we can call them the Inner Party, Comrade Britpat. They'll keep the lousy Proles in their place.

 

[bripat9643]

We were dominated by a two party system for 150 years or so until we changed our voting system to a proportional system about 15 years ago.
We now have about seven parties represented in our parliament.
Some see this as a good thing...others have a different view.

Where do you live?

 

[idb]

We were dominated by a two party system for 150 years or so until we changed our voting system to a proportional system about 15 years ago.
We now have about seven parties represented in our parliament.
Some see this as a good thing...others have a different view.

Where do you live?

New Zealand

 

[Wry Catcher]

I think a better question is: Do the results of the last 50 years indicate voters were presented with adequate choices in candidates by the two party corruption machine?

Have you considered the problem maybe systemic? Most third party candidates are focused on one or maybe two issues. What would a third party offer? Many express a need for a third party, yet never offer what they want in terms of a philosophy.

I'd vote for third party candidates who eschewed bribes; who campaigned on issues and ideas. Of course without feeding the media beast their voices would rarely be heard by anyone out of earshot.

We were dominated by a two party system for 150 years or so until we changed our voting system to a proportional system about 15 years ago.
We now have about seven parties represented in our parliament.
Some see this as a good thing...others have a different view.

Would you kindly explain how a "proportional system" works?

 

[editec]

Have you considered the problem maybe systemic? Most third party candidates are focused on one or maybe two issues. What would a third party offer? Many express a need for a third party, yet never offer what they want in terms of a philosophy.

I'd vote for third party candidates who eschewed bribes; who campaigned on issues and ideas. Of course without feeding the media beast their voices would rarely be heard by anyone out of earshot.

We were dominated by a two party system for 150 years or so until we changed our voting system to a proportional system about 15 years ago.
We now have about seven parties represented in our parliament.
Some see this as a good thing...others have a different view.

Would you kindly explain how a "proportional system" works?

You have to have a parlimentary system for it to work.

We have a winner takes all kind of system in place in all but two states.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We were dominated by a two party system for 150 years or so until we changed our voting system to a proportional system about 15 years ago.
We now have about seven parties represented in our parliament.
Some see this as a good thing...others have a different view.

Would you kindly explain how a "proportional system" works?

You have to have a parlimentary system for it to work.

We have a winner takes all kind of system in place in all but two states.

I'm not sure that's what he meant by a "proportional system"; he indicated the system changed 15 years ago and I'm under the impression NZ had a parlimentary system for the 150 years referenced.

 

[idb]

Would you kindly explain how a "proportional system" works?

You have to have a parlimentary system for it to work.

We have a winner takes all kind of system in place in all but two states.

I'm not sure that's what he meant by a "proportional system"; he indicated the system changed 15 years ago and I'm under the impression NZ had a parlimentary system for the 150 years referenced.

It's still a parliamentary system.
What has changed is the way that seats are apportioned.
They are now apportioned based on the percentage of votes that a party receives.
It's a little more complicated than that but, essentially, if your party get 15% of the vote then you receive 15% of the seats in the parliament.

 

[Sheldon]

California has term limits, so yeah. It is really not a fix to a systemic problem. The fix would come from an electorate who gets and stays informed, who doesn't get distracted by dickpics, and who demands more from the candidates than just the same old shallow platitudes. If this website is any indication, it ain't happening. So term limits or not, a mostly incompetent electorate gets stuck with a mostly incompetent political body. BWGD.

 

[Too Tall]

We were dominated by a two party system for 150 years or so until we changed our voting system to a proportional system about 15 years ago.
We now have about seven parties represented in our parliament.
Some see this as a good thing...others have a different view.

Where do you live?

New Zealand

I did not like your countries politics but I totally enjoyed your country and the people that I met during my 4 months in your country. I traveled (by air) from the north end of the north island to the south end of the south island, and spent a week or two in five of your cities. I also got the hang of driving on the other side of the road in New Zealand before I had to spend the next 5 months in Australia.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

I always interpret calls for term limits as an acknowledgement that elections are an ineffective method for affecting change. It's important to zero in on why that is and and ask if term limits address or fix those deficiencies. I suspect the answer, in general, is no.

Although I still support term limits, you do make a valid point. If americans are ignorant enough to elect the same idiots over and over again, they're probably ignorant enough to elect new idiots over and over again. Whether the idiots are new or old wont make much of a difference.

 

[chikenwing]

term limits ....we have them...its called elections....the citizens vote etc.....why are you wanting to take this power out of the voters hands and turn more power over to the government? if you want to change term limits then you will have to change the entire way the senate functions on seniority...

Term limits are not to protect the public from the Gov,it's the other way around,
We need protection from ourselves. We continue to elect the same losers.

 

[FA_Q2]

The argument AGAINST term limits is that it takes TIME to get up to speed on subjects that Congress oversees.

And without enough time Congress becomes much less effective in overseeing and controlling the Bureaucracy.

I'm not entirely sure I buy into this argument, and I know perfectly well I don't if the term limit was set at 12 years in Congress.

The solution to that is simple. Get rid of most of the bureaucracy. That is a major reason that congress has so many problems in the first place.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Regardless of the choices they were presented with, they could have made better choices.

FDR, Truman, LBJ, Carter, Bush Sr., Bush Jr, Obama.

They all suck.

Proving that effective party leadership does not translate into having the best intentions for the American People.

A politician with good intentions is as unthinkable as a liberal who understands economics.

Or a conservative who cares about anyone but him/her self! Hey-yuck Gaffaw, giggle snort!

Now that we have the pointless labeling out of the way, can we resume the real discussion regarding term limits and send any more of that bullshit to the Flame Zone?