Thank you Ted Cruz!

[Fort Fun Indiana]

they will all be looking to use their office to set themselves up after they soon leave.

They already do that because they don't know for sure when they will leave. Term limits will limit how chummy government people can get with corruption. This 40 years in office shit needs to stop. It will also lead to younger leaders that are closer to their prime.

They will do it more knowing when they will leave. Ted Cruz, for example, will not be leaving until he decides to retire. And the candidates will often be hand picked for corporate interests, especially in the 75% of districts where the winner by party is a foregone conclusion. Check how many congressional incumbents have lost in the last few decades. The percentage is in the single digits. I get the arguments FOR term limits as well. I feel like this is all pointless hand wringing in the end, unless we stop the practice of partisan gerrymandering. Clearly this country is too far gone to address that rationally.

 

[JoeB131]

Ted Cruz is the Eddie Haskell of congress.

Oooh... Good analogy!!!

 

[evenflow1969]

I think the way to change the system is from the bottom up, not top down. I bet even on a forum like this there's a surprising amount of ignorance when it comes to local politics. How many people here could tell me who their sheriff is without looking it up? Judges? Other local government? In some places an organized group of 50 people could flip a seat and create a serious impact locally. By far the biggest waves you can make as a voter are local, yet very few even keep up. Starting at the local level is also the best and probably the only way to get third parties rolling.

Correct.

And we already have term limits – they’re called elections.

Unfortunately they do not work as term limits. The imcomv

This thing has a snowball's chance in hell, but AT LEAST SOMEONE IS SAYING IT -- TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS:

We already have term limits for Congress, they're called "elections".

When someone talks about term limits, it's usually because they are upset that someone in another state or district has been there too long and has too much influence.

They don't work that way unfortunately. The incumbent wins like 90 percent of the time. We need term limits.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The only way to "drain the swamp" is to have a system that right upfront has as it's foundation, a system where career politicians are forbidden.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I think the way to change the system is from the bottom up, not top down. I bet even on a forum like this there's a surprising amount of ignorance when it comes to local politics. How many people here could tell me who their sheriff is without looking it up? Judges? Other local government? In some places an organized group of 50 people could flip a seat and create a serious impact locally. By far the biggest waves you can make as a voter are local, yet very few even keep up. Starting at the local level is also the best and probably the only way to get third parties rolling.

Correct.

And we already have term limits – they’re called elections.

Lol!!!

Jesus, can you be any more cliche` ?

 

[JoeB131]

They don't work that way unfortunately. The incumbent wins like 90 percent of the time. We need term limits.

Again, we have term limits. They're called "Elections".

If you don't like your Congressman, you can vote him out. Heck, I live in the Illinois 8th District, and when we found out that Joe Walsh (R-Koch Bros.) was a teabagger nut, we voted him out in favor of War Hero Tammy Duckworth.

See how that works?

The only way to "drain the swamp" is to have a system that right upfront has as it's foundation, a system where career politicians are forbidden.

Never going to happen. So let's say you get a Term limit of 12 years. Okay. So you have a politician who spends 12 years as a State Legislator, 12 years as a Congressman and 12 years as a Senator... He's still going to be doing that as a career.

I think that 4 years of Trump's incompetence shows why you really WANT professional politicians in office...you know, people who know what they are doing.

 

[Mac1958]

I think the way to change the system is from the bottom up, not top down. I bet even on a forum like this there's a surprising amount of ignorance when it comes to local politics. How many people here could tell me who their sheriff is without looking it up? Judges? Other local government? In some places an organized group of 50 people could flip a seat and create a serious impact locally. By far the biggest waves you can make as a voter are local, yet very few even keep up. Starting at the local level is also the best and probably the only way to get third parties rolling.

Correct.

And we already have term limits – they’re called elections.

Unfortunately they do not work as term limits. The imcomv

This thing has a snowball's chance in hell, but AT LEAST SOMEONE IS SAYING IT -- TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS:

We already have term limits for Congress, they're called "elections".

When someone talks about term limits, it's usually because they are upset that someone in another state or district has been there too long and has too much influence.

They don't work that way unfortunately. The incumbent wins like 90 percent of the time. We need term limits.

It's no mystery why incumbents win most of the time. While the electorate is otherwise barely paying attention, the incumbent is..

• Building a power base within their party
• Building a power base within their geographic area
• Bringing home the pork (like this COVID bill) for campaign time
• Playing ball with congressional leaders for plum committee roles and more PR
• Spending a HIGH percentage of their time thinking about how to play footsie with donors, using favors as leverage
• Doing favors that have nothing to do with serving their constituency
• Pushing the party's partisan agenda for campaign dollars and help
• Staying in front of their constituency in myriad ways

And those against term limits, who otherwise would scream about a "level playing field", don't care at all that the LAST thing this is, is a "level playing field". This is as tilted a playing field as anything in politics.

 

[JoeB131]

It's no mystery why incumbents win most of the time. While the electorate is otherwise barely paying attention, the incumbent is..

• Building a power base within their party
• Building a power base within their geographic area
• Bringing home the pork (like this COVID bill) for campaign time

All of that is called, "Being an effective legislator", Mitlaufer Mac.

Playing ball with congressional leaders for plum committee roles and more PR

Um, yeah, you kind of have to do that to get anything done in Congress. Because there are 435 other guys and you have to get at least 217 to agree with you.

• Spending a HIGH percentage of their time thinking about how to play footsie with donors, using favors as leverage
• Doing favors that have nothing to do with serving their constituency

That sounds like a good reason to limit campaign contributions, not limit who I can vote for. But we tried that with McCain Feingold, and the SCOTUS passed "Citizens United" and made that situation worse.

Pushing the party's partisan agenda for campaign dollars and help

You said that already....

Okay, let's get real. The Squad are a bunch of congresswomen who were upstarts, who don't play the party game and who had the eeeeevil big donors, especially the Jews, spend a lot of money trying to defeat them.

They all easily won their primary challenges.

Staying in front of their constituency in myriad ways

Yes, that's what you are supposed to do. The much maligned AOC beat a Congressman who spent more time in Washington than his district.

And those against term limits, who otherwise would scream about a "level playing field", don't care at all that the LAST thing this is, is a "level playing field". This is as tilted a playing field as anything in politics.

Actually, what I don't want is you telling me who I can or can't elect in my district. If I don't like what my Congressman or Senator is doing, I'll vote him out. MYOFB.

 

[evenflow1969]

They don't work that way unfortunately. The incumbent wins like 90 percent of the time. We need term limits.

Again, we have term limits. They're called "Elections".

If you don't like your Congressman, you can vote him out. Heck, I live in the Illinois 8th District, and when we found out that Joe Walsh (R-Koch Bros.) was a teabagger nut, we voted him out in favor of War Hero Tammy Duckworth.

See how that works?

The only way to "drain the swamp" is to have a system that right upfront has as it's foundation, a system where career politicians are forbidden.

Never going to happen. So let's say you get a Term limit of 12 years. Okay. So you have a politician who spends 12 years as a State Legislator, 12 years as a Congressman and 12 years as a Senator... He's still going to be doing that as a career.

I think that 4 years of Trump's incompetence shows why you really WANT professional politicians in office...you know, people who know what they are doing.

One out of how many elections? I only ever got ran against once. Most challengers do not have a prayer. Only once did the opposing party even bother to put up a candidate. Granted my position was not senator or rep and very few people even qualify for the job. The year I was ran against there were only 5 people in the entire county with qualifications for the job. This was not the case for most positions. It was rare even at the county level for a position to turn. Running is expensive nearly impossible with out support of your party. The party rarely supports a challenger. This reality.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

If this ever made it to the floor for a vote -- Ted would vote against it.....

Because he only does this shit for theater -- if it ever really came down to it, you will see that he aint really about that life....

 

[evenflow1969]

I think the way to change the system is from the bottom up, not top down. I bet even on a forum like this there's a surprising amount of ignorance when it comes to local politics. How many people here could tell me who their sheriff is without looking it up? Judges? Other local government? In some places an organized group of 50 people could flip a seat and create a serious impact locally. By far the biggest waves you can make as a voter are local, yet very few even keep up. Starting at the local level is also the best and probably the only way to get third parties rolling.

Correct.

And we already have term limits – they’re called elections.

Unfortunately they do not work as term limits. The imcomv

This thing has a snowball's chance in hell, but AT LEAST SOMEONE IS SAYING IT -- TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS:

We already have term limits for Congress, they're called "elections".

When someone talks about term limits, it's usually because they are upset that someone in another state or district has been there too long and has too much influence.

They don't work that way unfortunately. The incumbent wins like 90 percent of the time. We need term limits.

It's no mystery why incumbents win most of the time. While the electorate is otherwise barely paying attention, the incumbent is..

• Building a power base within their party
• Building a power base within their geographic area
• Bringing home the pork (like this COVID bill) for campaign time
• Playing ball with congressional leaders for plum committee roles and more PR
• Spending a HIGH percentage of their time thinking about how to play footsie with donors, using favors as leverage
• Doing favors that have nothing to do with serving their constituency
• Pushing the party's partisan agenda for campaign dollars and help
• Staying in front of their constituency in myriad ways

And those against term limits, who otherwise would scream about a "level playing field", don't care at all that the LAST thing this is, is a "level playing field". This is as tilted a playing field as anything in politics.

Yep, I spent about 3 hours a day after doing my job doing most of the above. There was very little chance I would even get ran against. Especially after possible challengers saw my war chest. Only once did I get ran against, it was not even close.

 

[JoeB131]

One out of how many elections? I only ever got ran against once. Most challengers do not have a prayer. Only once did the opposing party even bother to put up a candidate. Granted my position was not senator or rep and very few people even qualify for the job. The year I was ran against there were only 5 people in the entire county with qualifications for the job. This was not the case for most positions. It was rare even at the county level for a position to turn. Running is expensive nearly impossible with out support of your party. The party rarely supports a challenger. This reality.

I can't address you sitaution because you don't mention what office you held.

Yes, I'll admit, a lot of these minor offices which should probably be appointed and not elected. Nobody runs for them because most people don't even know they exist.

But for Congressman, most people should know who their congressman is.

In my district this year, the Republicans didn't put up a candidate for Congress, even though they held the seat 8 years ago. The Libertarian Candidate still managed to eke out 20% of the vote. The thing is, my Congressman does pretty much everything right. He holds meetings to meet with his constituents, he's a strong voice in congress, he speaks authoritatively on issues.

And frankly, I really don't want him term-limited arbitrarily if he's doing a good job.

 

[Mac1958]

I think the way to change the system is from the bottom up, not top down. I bet even on a forum like this there's a surprising amount of ignorance when it comes to local politics. How many people here could tell me who their sheriff is without looking it up? Judges? Other local government? In some places an organized group of 50 people could flip a seat and create a serious impact locally. By far the biggest waves you can make as a voter are local, yet very few even keep up. Starting at the local level is also the best and probably the only way to get third parties rolling.

Correct.

And we already have term limits – they’re called elections.

Unfortunately they do not work as term limits. The imcomv

This thing has a snowball's chance in hell, but AT LEAST SOMEONE IS SAYING IT -- TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS:

We already have term limits for Congress, they're called "elections".

When someone talks about term limits, it's usually because they are upset that someone in another state or district has been there too long and has too much influence.

They don't work that way unfortunately. The incumbent wins like 90 percent of the time. We need term limits.

It's no mystery why incumbents win most of the time. While the electorate is otherwise barely paying attention, the incumbent is..

• Building a power base within their party
• Building a power base within their geographic area
• Bringing home the pork (like this COVID bill) for campaign time
• Playing ball with congressional leaders for plum committee roles and more PR
• Spending a HIGH percentage of their time thinking about how to play footsie with donors, using favors as leverage
• Doing favors that have nothing to do with serving their constituency
• Pushing the party's partisan agenda for campaign dollars and help
• Staying in front of their constituency in myriad ways

And those against term limits, who otherwise would scream about a "level playing field", don't care at all that the LAST thing this is, is a "level playing field". This is as tilted a playing field as anything in politics.

Yep, I spent about 3 hours a day after doing my job doing most of the above. There was very little chance I would even get ran against. Especially after possible challengers saw my war chest. Only once did I get ran against, it was not even close.

If we had term limits and got the money out of politics, you would see profound changes in the legislative behavior of these people.

Or, we can just bending over and taking it, and complaining about what they're doing in a system WE are CHOOSING to maintain.

I'd love to know why the anti-term limit people are so set on the status quo.

 

[evenflow1969]

One out of how many elections? I only ever got ran against once. Most challengers do not have a prayer. Only once did the opposing party even bother to put up a candidate. Granted my position was not senator or rep and very few people even qualify for the job. The year I was ran against there were only 5 people in the entire county with qualifications for the job. This was not the case for most positions. It was rare even at the county level for a position to turn. Running is expensive nearly impossible with out support of your party. The party rarely supports a challenger. This reality.

I can't address you sitaution because you don't mention what office you held.

Yes, I'll admit, a lot of these minor offices which should probably be appointed and not elected. Nobody runs for them because most people don't even know they exist.

But for Congressman, most people should know who their congressman is.

In my district this year, the Republicans didn't put up a candidate for Congress, even though they held the seat 8 years ago. The Libertarian Candidate still managed to eke out 20% of the vote. The thing is, my Congressman does pretty much everything right. He holds meetings to meet with his constituents, he's a strong voice in congress, he speaks authoritatively on issues.

And frankly, I really don't want him term-limited arbitrarily if he's doing a good job.

Its the same for congressman and maybe even worse due to gerrymandering in my state. Very little turn in positions. The party is not flushing money down a hole. Only the seats where constituents are realy unhappy will the party back a challenger. Even then most times they are unsuccessful. I was appointed for first term. Also a common practice, I was hand picked by the incumbent when he decided to retire a year before his term ended. That way my first run was as incumbent.

 

[JoeB131]

If we had term limits and got the money out of politics, you would see profound changes in the legislative behavior of these people.

We can't get the money out of politics as long as the people WITH money have so much at stake in what they do.

As for Term Limits, then all you are going to do is switch the power from the ELECTED representatives to UNELECTED staff members, because they'll be the ones who will know what going on and how to get things done.

Or, we can just bending over and taking it, and complaining about what they're doing in a system WE are CHOOSING to maintain.

Here's why we end up taking it... Because only 60% of us bother to vote in National Elections.

Because only 37% can name their Representative.

Just 37% of Americans can name their Representative -

Americans aren’t likely to know much about their elected Representative. Few know their Representative’s name, and barely half know his or her party affiliation. Nor are Americans likely to have a strong opinion of their Representative, one way or the other. Yet no matter who they are—male or...

www.haveninsights.com

Because only 25% of voters show up to vote in Primaries in presidential years, and even LESS than that in non-presidential years.

Turnout was high in the 2016 primary season, but just short of 2008 record

More than 57.6 million people voted in this year's Republican and Democratic presidential primaries, or 28.5% of estimated eligible voters.

www.pewresearch.org

Because thanks to Gerrymandering, only 40 out of 435 congressional seats are in play in any given year.

I'd love to know why the anti-term limit people are so set on the status quo.

Well, they've been telling you and you've been ignoring them, Mitlaufer Mac.

Because as stated above, Term limits are the problem.

Replacing a 12 term congressman who knows what he's doing with a one term congressman who really doesn't isn't helping anyone, really.

 

[JoeB131]

Its the same for congressman and maybe even worse due to gerrymandering in my state. Very little turn in positions. The party is not flushing money down a hole. Only the seats where constituents are realy unhappy will the party back a challenger. Even then most times they are unsuccessful. I was appointed for first term. Also a common practice, I was hand picked by the incumbent when he decided to retire a year before his term ended. That way my first run was as incumbent.

So the problem isn't term limits, it's gerrymandering. I agree, gerrymandering is awful.

But if a district is always going to be an R or a D district, I'm not seeing the benefit of limiting how long someone can be there.

Right now, in IL, we only have one swing district, the 14th. It used to be Hastert's district, before we found out he was fucking little boys. He got replaced by a Democrat, Bill Foster, in a redistricting that combined two Republican districts. He was replaced by a Republican in the Teabagger Wave, and that guy was replaced by Lauren Underwood in 2018 in the anti-Trump wave. My guess, Underwood is probably going to get voted out in 2022, because she barely squeaked by this time.

Most of the other districts, will probably have the same guys winning again and again, but term limiting them won't change the balance of power.

 

[evenflow1969]

Its the same for congressman and maybe even worse due to gerrymandering in my state. Very little turn in positions. The party is not flushing money down a hole. Only the seats where constituents are realy unhappy will the party back a challenger. Even then most times they are unsuccessful. I was appointed for first term. Also a common practice, I was hand picked by the incumbent when he decided to retire a year before his term ended. That way my first run was as incumbent.

So the problem isn't term limits, it's gerrymandering. I agree, gerrymandering is awful.

But if a district is always going to be an R or a D district, I'm not seeing the benefit of limiting how long someone can be there.

Right now, in IL, we only have one swing district, the 14th. It used to be Hastert's district, before we found out he was fucking little boys. He got replaced by a Democrat, Bill Foster, in a redistricting that combined two Republican districts. He was replaced by a Republican in the Teabagger Wave, and that guy was replaced by Lauren Underwood in 2018 in the anti-Trump wave. My guess, Underwood is probably going to get voted out in 2022, because she barely squeaked by this time.

Most of the other districts, will probably have the same guys winning again and again, but term limiting them won't change the balance of power.

Its both. There are certain positions in which term limits is a bad idea. These are technocrats positions. Term limit my former position and you will run out of people to fill the position in a hurry. As it stands they are likely going to have to lower the qualifications for the position just to fill them especially in smaller countries. Many of the smaller countries have to import some one to fill the position. This is not the case in policy positions. I will say this let's kill gerrymandering first then see how it goes for a while. If that fixes things good. If not gotta think about term limits.

 

[evenflow1969]

Its the same for congressman and maybe even worse due to gerrymandering in my state. Very little turn in positions. The party is not flushing money down a hole. Only the seats where constituents are realy unhappy will the party back a challenger. Even then most times they are unsuccessful. I was appointed for first term. Also a common practice, I was hand picked by the incumbent when he decided to retire a year before his term ended. That way my first run was as incumbent.

So the problem isn't term limits, it's gerrymandering. I agree, gerrymandering is awful.

But if a district is always going to be an R or a D district, I'm not seeing the benefit of limiting how long someone can be there.

Right now, in IL, we only have one swing district, the 14th. It used to be Hastert's district, before we found out he was fucking little boys. He got replaced by a Democrat, Bill Foster, in a redistricting that combined two Republican districts. He was replaced by a Republican in the Teabagger Wave, and that guy was replaced by Lauren Underwood in 2018 in the anti-Trump wave. My guess, Underwood is probably going to get voted out in 2022, because she barely squeaked by this time.

Most of the other districts, will probably have the same guys winning again and again, but term limiting them won't change the balance of power.

Its both. There are certain positions in which term limits is a bad idea. These are technocrats positions. Term limit my former position and you will run out of people to fill the position in a hurry. As it stands they are likely going to have to lower the qualifications for the position just to fill them especially in smaller countries. Many of the smaller countries have to import some one to fill the position. This is not the case in policy positions. I will say this let's kill gerrymandering first then see how it goes for a while. If that fixes things good. If not gotta think about term limits.

 

[JoeB131]

Its both. There are certain positions in which term limits is a bad idea. These are technocrats positions. Term limit my former position and you will run out of people to fill the position in a hurry. As it stands they are likely going to have to lower the qualifications for the position just to fill them especially in smaller countries. Many of the smaller countries have to import some one to fill the position. This is not the case in policy positions. I will say this let's kill gerrymandering first then see how it goes for a while. If that fixes things good. If not gotta think about term limits.

But the problem is you haven't made the case why term limits would be a good thing.

Other than some Congressmen garner too much power if they are there too long.

The real problem is our lack of engagement. As stated above, only 25% participate in primaries and only 37% can name their congressman. You think that's going to be helped by force-retiring them (even the effective ones) every six or 12 years? I don't.

The real problem is except for the political junkies, which describes almost everyone posting on USMB, most people are disengaged from this stuff. Even in a LIFE OR DEATH election this year, 80 million people didn't bother to vote.

Here's how you can fix a lot of the problems.

1) Get rid of Gerrymandering. Maybe even make Congress smaller so that the districts cover more people and are more diverse.

2) Get rid of the damned Electoral College so that more than 10 states end up counting.

3) Have all offices require 50% to win. That means runoffs, which is fine, and you can get more smaller parties and minority views involved.

4) Shorten the electoral season to only a few weeks so that these guys aren't as addicted to money as they are.

End of the day, though, The real problem remains... It's our own lack of engagement.

Trump didn't win because a majority agreed with him or even that most of the people embraced his racist viewpoint.

He won because he was a celebrity and we think celebrities have merit.

More Americans can tell you who won the Bachelor than name their own congressman, and that's the problem.

 

[evenflow1969]

Its both. There are certain positions in which term limits is a bad idea. These are technocrats positions. Term limit my former position and you will run out of people to fill the position in a hurry. As it stands they are likely going to have to lower the qualifications for the position just to fill them especially in smaller countries. Many of the smaller countries have to import some one to fill the position. This is not the case in policy positions. I will say this let's kill gerrymandering first then see how it goes for a while. If that fixes things good. If not gotta think about term limits.

But the problem is you haven't made the case why term limits would be a good thing.

Other than some Congressmen garner too much power if they are there too long.

The real problem is our lack of engagement. As stated above, only 25% participate in primaries and only 37% can name their congressman. You think that's going to be helped by force-retiring them (even the effective ones) every six or 12 years? I don't.

The real problem is except for the political junkies, which describes almost everyone posting on USMB, most people are disengaged from this stuff. Even in a LIFE OR DEATH election this year, 80 million people didn't bother to vote.

Here's how you can fix a lot of the problems.

1) Get rid of Gerrymandering. Maybe even make Congress smaller so that the districts cover more people and are more diverse.

2) Get rid of the damned Electoral College so that more than 10 states end up counting.

3) Have all offices require 50% to win. That means runoffs, which is fine, and you can get more smaller parties and minority views involved.

4) Shorten the electoral season to only a few weeks so that these guys aren't as addicted to money as they are.

End of the day, though, The real problem remains... It's our own lack of engagement.

Trump didn't win because a majority agreed with him or even that most of the people embraced his racist viewpoint.

He won because he was a celebrity and we think celebrities have merit.

More Americans can tell you who won the Bachelor than name their own congressman, and that's the problem.

I don't realy have to. It isn't going to happen I would be more interested at this point to fix gerrymandering. Not ready for term limits or even to worry about them till I figure out what positions we should avoid them. I will fight for that when I have a better grip on how best Institute them. So in reality I mostly agree with you. Not ready for term limits until I understand how to best install them. I will fight for the end of gerrymandering though. I do not want laws installed until I understand the true effects of them.