Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think it would be a vast improvement on our current system.

That would be amazing. That way a President wouldn't have to worry about reelections so they could focus on doing what they were elected for.

I also think making all congressional seats so nobody can hold a seat for 2 consecutive terms. Unlimited number of terms, but none can be consecutive.

Whatever the argument is for holding a president to two terms should be good enough to hold every other national office to two terms IMO.

A single 6 year term would be good IMO.
House Seats are the biggest load of crap I think. A 2 year term, the majority if which you spend campaigning for your next two year term.

I agree. 2 years is no time at all. 4 years is still too short. 6 seems about right.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I agree. 2 years is no time at all. 4 years is still too short. 6 seems about right.

My crapshoot:

House: three 4 year terms. Alternate half up for election every 2 years.
Senate: two 6 year terms. Keep the current rotation.
President: I like the idea of 6 years.

While were on this topic, I would add shortest split line method, and instant runoff to that list.

Careful.....you all sounding like extremists...

 Ahtman wrote:
How would people feel about the President getting one six-year term instead of a four year term, much of which is taken up by trying to figure out how to get a one time four year extension?

Presidential term limits aren't too bad IMO.

Senatorial terms, however, are a serious problem. There need to be reelection limits. We hear the same garbage from the same stagnant turds decades on end.

 Jihadin wrote:
Careful.....you all sounding like extremists...

Only to the establishment.

Actually, I'd repeal the 17th amendment to let the STATE legislature elect US Senate.

As it should be.

I don't really like that, unless you make the shortest split line method required. Otherwise gerrymandering is even more powerful than it is already. Besides, popular vote (or instant runoff *hint* *hint*) is closer to the people.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I don't really like that, unless you make the shortest split line method required. Otherwise gerrymandering is even more powerful than it is already. Besides, popular vote (or instant runoff *hint* *hint*) is closer to the people.

The current system DOES have merits.

However, keep this in mind. Do you think the voters as a whole has enough knowledge how state/federal government works to make informed decision?

Prior to the 17th, the people already voted for the House and the President.

The STATE elected the Senators as they're supposed to represent their respective State (which in turns, represent the people).

What it should do, is force the voters to pay more attention/be more involved in their local elections.

Know what I mean?

State Legislatures are the one place that manages to out-stupid Washington DC. I trust a drunk homeless person to make a better choice when voting for Senator than the idiots in the State Capitol.

 d-usa wrote:
State Legislatures are the one place that manages to out-stupid Washington DC. I trust a drunk homeless person to make a better choice when voting for Senator than the idiots in the State Capitol.

I can say that in all things politics.

 d-usa wrote:
State Legislatures are the one place that manages to out-stupid Washington DC. I trust a drunk homeless person to make a better choice when voting for Senator than the idiots in the State Capitol.

Well, with where you live...

First... our country was designed as a Republic... not a pure democracy... looking at all the idiots around I definitely know why it was designed that way! Today, whomever promises the better cookies to the masses gets elected. (Right now, that is the democrats, because too much of the money the republicans pull in is from people that they would loose the support of if they went as hog wild as the democrats promise that they are).
Secondly, neither party differ significantly enough to take a stand on an issue that isn't a 'wedge' issue no matter how important.
Next, anyone who runs is by definition, bonkers! Look at the mess that an electoral campaign puts a person through. Not only will their own background be gone through with a fine tooth comb, but the stress and strain that a state or national office puts on their own family... you have to be extremely egotistical, if not extremely narcissistic to do that. And you want to put even more power into those hands?
Finally, can you honestly say that any politician who has run for president in the last 25 years has been "the best person for the job"?
How to fix this system?
#1... get the money out of politics. All of it. No, donations of money to political candidates and pac and causes is not protected by the 1st amendment.
Why? Because until we do... all of our candidates work for whomever gives them the most money... and that isn't you or I. Until our candidates have to please the people, rather than some corporations, then NOTHING that we find important will be done correctly.

I don't "like" the numbers/ideas in the OP (then again, I don't have to like them even if they are true)... I've seen far too many economists rail on and on and on about how we NEVER see/feel the real effects of a president's economic policies until 8-15 years after he's been gone. I'm not going to suggest that we don't feel a tremor, or beginning of what's going to happen when a decision is made (such as the handling of the housing issue in 08) and that a President "Cant" have any affect on the economy right now... but the full force, full effect won't be known until later.

Perhaps some of these economists are now wrong, what with the advent, rise and dominance of the Internet and the "Now" society, etc. giving rise to quicker reaction times to nearly all political policy change/shift.

 Anpu-adom wrote:

#1... get the money out of politics. All of it. No, donations of money to political candidates and pac and causes is not protected by the 1st amendment.
Why? Because until we do... all of our candidates work for whomever gives them the most money... and that isn't you or I. Until our candidates have to please the people, rather than some corporations, then NOTHING that we find important will be done correctly.

Sorry mate... that won't happen... As they say, once it's in politics it's impossible to get back out of it. This idea of yours, it'd be like shutting down Social Security, or Welfare, or Medicare... or, even worse, the VA .... quite simply, there's no way you're ever going to get the money of the few out of politics now that it's been ruled (repeatedly) that Corporations are "people" too.

Nah, even with the internet, the economy still has long cycles.

Until things can be delivered instantaneously via matter transporters it will remain so.

Term limits do nothing beyond strengthening political parties, which is not something that will alter the situation in the US.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I don't really like that, unless you make the shortest split line method required. Otherwise gerrymandering is even more powerful than it is already. Besides, popular vote (or instant runoff *hint* *hint*) is closer to the people.

The current system DOES have merits.

However, keep this in mind. Do you think the voters as a whole has enough knowledge how state/federal government works to make informed decision?

Prior to the 17th, the people already voted for the House and the President.

The STATE elected the Senators as they're supposed to represent their respective State (which in turns, represent the people).

What it should do, is force the voters to pay more attention/be more involved in their local elections.

Know what I mean?

Do you really want the McDonalds crowd more involved? I have to have pictures on the cash machine because I don't do numbers, but hey my vote counts as much as yours.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Senatorial terms, however, are a serious problem. There need to be reelection limits. We hear the same garbage from the same stagnant turds decades on end.

I agree.

I think every elected office needs to be term limited. There should be no such creature as a professional politician; you should serve and go home afterward.

However, I'd go further still and abolish elections entirely and have every political office be selected by draft/lottery. No, I'm not kidding or being sarcastic: being a congressman should be exactly the same as jury duty.

The problem with that is the "uneducated masses" thing. The reason republics work better than direct democracy is that most people don't know enough about the many complex questions the country faces, as well as a lottery could end up with a congress that does not represent the beliefs of the people.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I don't really like that, unless you make the shortest split line method required. Otherwise gerrymandering is even more powerful than it is already. Besides, popular vote (or instant runoff *hint* *hint*) is closer to the people.

The current system DOES have merits.

However, keep this in mind. Do you think the voters as a whole has enough knowledge how state/federal government works to make informed decision?

Prior to the 17th, the people already voted for the House and the President.

The STATE elected the Senators as they're supposed to represent their respective State (which in turns, represent the people).

What it should do, is force the voters to pay more attention/be more involved in their local elections.

Know what I mean?

Do you really want the McDonalds crowd more involved?

To their local elections? Absolutely. If they want "their guy/gal" in the US Senate, they'd be more apt to be involved in their State elections. Which is a good thing.

I have to have pictures on the cash machine because I don't do numbers, but hey my vote counts as much as yours.

No one can't claim you don't have a vivid imagination.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The problem with that is the "uneducated masses" thing. The reason republics work better than direct democracy is that most people don't know enough about the many complex questions the country faces, as well as a lottery could end up with a congress that does not represent the beliefs of the people.

Hence my argument for repealing the 17th amendment.

 Ouze wrote:
[

However, I'd go further still and abolish elections entirely and have every political office be selected by draft/lottery. No, I'm not kidding or being sarcastic: being a congressman should be exactly the same as jury duty.

Nah... I wouldn't go that route.... I think all political people should be elected via Thunderdome!!!

Have them fight lions, and if the lions win, they become congressmen.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
[

However, I'd go further still and abolish elections entirely and have every political office be selected by draft/lottery. No, I'm not kidding or being sarcastic: being a congressman should be exactly the same as jury duty.

Nah... I wouldn't go that route.... I think all political people should be elected via Thunderdome!!!

Seconded.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Have them fight lions, and if the lions win, they become congressmen.

Are you Caligula reborn?? (Seriously... pretty famously, Caligula named his favorite horse to the Senate of Rome )

It's either that or Mr. Fusspot

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Have them fight lions, and if the lions win, they become congressmen.

Man, that's just cruel.

Why would your ever force those poor lions to become politicians?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually its patently false: The economy went from Depression to greatest economic power in the world under FDR. Now some might say that all had to do with WWII, but hey if Presidents are going to take credit for economies then FDR was Da Bomb (literally).

Some people hate him, but he got stuff done. I layperson believe him to be the best president we have ever had.

He definitely got stuff done.

despite the republicans best efforts...