Term Limits

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Uh, things like knowing that Reid and the California Democratic Party managed to win--in fact every single statewide office in California went to a Democrat in 2010 and they won a supermajority in the lege--doesn't require a link. It requires the guys lecturing me about how little I know about "the real world" to know the basic results of elections that took place in that long, long ago of two cycles ago.

This is the post filled with opinion which was being referred to.

There isn't some unwritten rule that only older white people turn out to vote in midterms--and you point out above that's the makeup of the midterm electorate in much of the country outside the West--it's just that they are part of the last generation competently habituated to vote by political campaign staff.

And voter suppression doesn't really explain it, either--after the gutting of the VRA and campaign finanace laws, the case for voter suppression benefitting the GOP and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party is much stronger but you're referring to trends going back father than that.

There are two major reasons Democrats don't participate in midterms:

1) National Democrats run horrible, horrible campaigns that are basically built on corporate team-building exercises. (Reid was supposed to be a goner in 2010. He told OFA to go fuck itself with its trading card "GOTV" plan and ran an actual GOTV operation in Nevada in the general after doing everything to make sure his opponent was the craziest fuck the Nevada GOP had to offer. California did pretty much the same thing. Guess what? The "Republican Tsunami" didn't reach their shores.)

2) The Democratic base understands the leadership of the Democratic Party hates them, views most of them as members of captured constituencies, and has no interest in acting on their values.

If you've ever done field interviews day in and day out for a Democratic campaign, many, many voters will tell you this directly.

For all the problems with the GOP, Republican voters are at least reasonably confident their electeds will do what they want--because the GOP fears rather than hates its base.

Also, nothing i said was incorrect. That Obama hoarded the Party money for 2012, ran a shitty campaign, basically guaranteed low turnout with the ACA, etc is easily verifiable if you actually look up political coverage from that year that isn't MSM horse race bullshit.

First you can tel us how exactly Reid managed to make sure who the GOP candidate was in Nevada out of the field of 9 hopefuls. Nevada's primaries are closed, so registered Republican voters chose who would represent them, not Reid or his GOTV efforts.

Then you can show how you come about the idea that "The Democratic base understands the leadership of the Democratic Party hates them, views most of them as members of captured constituencies, and has no interest in acting on their values." Because from where I sit, that's pure horse shit.

 

[Setanta84]

Knowing the outcomes is irrelevant. You claimed to know the why. I could claim that Obama won in 2008 because he was black and then it would be on me to attempt to prove that was some kind of advantage. Even if it is something that everybody knows, everybody is quite often wrong.

I know how the GOTV operations in CA and NV differed from the national coordinated program in those cycles. I'm not going into how I know that. But it's not hard to track the differences if you attend to Ralston's coverage of Nevada in 2010 or local and state coverage of CA that same cycle--national corporate news coverage of elections is worthless.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I know how the GOTV operations in CA and NV differed from the national coordinated program in those cycles. I'm not going into how I know that. But it's not hard to track the differences if you attend to Ralston's coverage of Nevada in 2010 or local and state coverage of CA that same cycle--national corporate news coverage of elections is worthless.

So you "know" it was different, but won't explain how or how you know and apparently based this on the opinion of one political pundit.

Ok...

 

[sr71plt]

I think they should consider lifting the House of Representative terms to three years. Campaigns are becoming so expansive and drawn out, that a congressman can never shake off the need to play to the special interests that are the loudest and/or have the deepest pockets.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I think they should consider lifting the House of Representative terms to three years. Campaigns are becoming so expansive and drawn out, that a congressman can never shake off the need to play to the special interests that are the loudest and/or have the deepest pockets.

That would be easier solved by making campaign financing public. No direct contributions from individuals or corporate entities, politicians are given a campaign budget from their party funded by the individual taxpayer's voluntary contributions to the party of their choice.

No more PACs, no more "Dark Money", no more bullshit lobbyists. Also, political advertisements should be subject to slander and libel law so that there are no more last minute telephone push polls asking if voters "would be less likely to vote for a candidate if they knew that they had an illegitimate black child." ala Karl Rove.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Term Limits is just about the only issue I've completely changed my stance on in adulthood.

I used to be a strong proponent of term limits.

Then I read a history of the rise and fall of the Medicis in Venice, arguably one of the most powerful capitalistic combines in world history.

The public agitated for term limits in Venice, and eventually got them. What this led to was a revolving door of figurehead elected officials, and the rise of an all-powerful....and unaccountable....permanent bureaucracy. The government couldn't stop simply because a new slate of legislators were seated, so the bureaucracy slowly but surely usurped political power in Venice and led to the downfall of the Merchant Princes.

It changed my thinking about term limits.

 

[ShySubSara]

I always was in favor of limiting spending on elections. For example, in a primary maybe you limit it to 50K spending total and then in general election it is 200K (just pulling numbers out of my butt but you get the idea). In addition you limit the time period for ads on TV, as well as the number of ads that can run on each station for each candidate, and set rates for ads that apply to everyone equally.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Three year terms would be incredibly unwieldy me thinks. I mean sometimes it happens with the presidential election, sometimes it's a mid term, sometimes it's the year after and you spend the year twiddling your thumbs. I love the concept and the heart behind it. I just don't see it working out as planned.

 

[sr71plt]

Three year terms would be incredibly unwieldy me thinks. I mean sometimes it happens with the presidential election, sometimes it's a mid term, sometimes it's the year after and you spend the year twiddling your thumbs. I love the concept and the heart behind it. I just don't see it working out as planned.

Fair point. OK, 4 years for House, 8 years for Senate. That should give some candidates and votes more pause for thought on any geriatric deciding to campaign for Senate.

The legislative business of government has burgeoned since this system was set up. I had to laugh at Rand Paul when he said he'd require congressmen to "read the bill." Certainly sounds nice, but that's another one of those Tom Clancy character concepts. There's A. too much proposed for the representative him/herself to read every single word of every bill. That's why they have staffs (and, unfortunately lobbyist partners), and B. a whole lot of wrangling went into putting a bill together in the first place. This is when the real business of the congressman and his/her staff is done.

 

[cyikac]

There are several states ( Virginia comes to mind) where the governor serves a 6 year term and cannot run for back to back terms but is allowed to run for non-consecutive terms. I think 6 years is long enough to get the job done but as the last office holder has proven, is not a deterrent for corruption.

I think term limits are a great idea but the problem that really needs addressing are the ridiculous "retirement" packages that elected officials leave office with. Now one could argue that when in office you have to divest yourself of any holdings that might cause a conflict of interest and the official deserves the compensation. I say if you leave office without taking advantage of the connections you have made then you are a fool. If these entitlements were reduced think of the money that could be saved.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Oh don't get me started on the read the bill. I want to ask him if he even reads the goddamn user manual for the the shit he buys. I don't know about you my last car had a user manual 125 pages long and most of it was so fucking technical that reading it wouldn't have done anything but kill dozens of my precious, precious brain cells via strain.

I do think that we'd be better off however with more lawyers and more career politicians. As I said earlier government is too complicated these days to hand over to people who don't know what they're doing.

 

[sr71plt]

There are several states ( Virginia comes to mind) where the governor serves a 6 year term and cannot run for back to back terms but is allowed to run for non-consecutive terms. I think 6 years is long enough to get the job done but as the last office holder has proven, is not a deterrent for corruption.

It's more restricted than that in Virginia. 4 years at a go. And budgets have to be started two years in advance. And budgets have to be balanced.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Truman is a case of both. He was a henpecked/pussywhipped cretin, fucking moron, and lifelong failure until a wealthy donor wanted to show that he could literally install anyone he wished into any office he wished.

That ain't this guy.

 

[about_average]

The only people who check those boxes are politicians.

I usually check it, because of my leanings towards wanting them to be 100% publicly funded. I figure I should put my money where my mouth is.
Although I didn't check it this year because my wife didn't want to. I guess it'll be alternate years.

 

[sr71plt]

I check those boxes and if they made each dollar I give force down a ceiling of what the candidate could get from private sources, I'd be willing to give more via that route.

 

[ishtat]

Don't think much of term limits for legislators, but time limits for Supreme Court Justices is way overdue. Age 75 should be enough. In most jurisdictions around the world it's 70, which is perhaps a bit low .

 

[patient1]

Can someone articulate the specific problem that terms limits are intended to solve?

I think the underlying problem is that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." People get tired of things being manipulated by untouchable politicians that somebody else elects.

Like this guy- Dapper Dan Flood, regional "Folk Hero " and Congressional subcommittee chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, who resigned after being censured with 175 possible cases pending against him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Flood

Make no mistake, he still could have won re-election, in spite of being a laughing stock on Saturday Night Live. He was able to funnel US Treasury money into his district and pockets.


Likewise, my current Congressman, a Republican, has been here forever and will stay as long as he likes. Why? He's in a gerrymandered protected district. Opposition party candidates are throwing away money whenever they challenge him, which doesn't seem to be very often. Other Republicans would be labeled traitors for opposing him. He's entrenched. He's got favors and obligations. Contributors have an "investment" in him, and don't want to lose it.
He's got a committee or two that makes him valuable. He does what he does, and we have to wait for the Supreme Court to undo it.

*****************************************

Perhaps committee assignments should be like decided by lottery of the legislators, much the same as jury duty. Yes, we would lose the benefit of expertise, but we would also lose the corrupting influence of power gained by seniority and positional security. It means that Congress would have to conduct it's business in terms which laypeople could understand, which would be a good thing. After all, we have to entrust our very lives and futures to a jury if we're ever accused, so shouldn't that lottery approach be good enough for government?

Again, it's important that the revolving door be closed between federal paychecks, and working for companies or countries which lobby the government.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Term Limits is just about the only issue I've completely changed my stance on in adulthood.

I used to be a strong proponent of term limits.

Then I read a history of the rise and fall of the Medicis in Venice, arguably one of the most powerful capitalistic combines in world history.

The public agitated for term limits in Venice, and eventually got them. What this led to was a revolving door of figurehead elected officials, and the rise of an all-powerful....and unaccountable....permanent bureaucracy. The government couldn't stop simply because a new slate of legislators were seated, so the bureaucracy slowly but surely usurped political power in Venice and led to the downfall of the Merchant Princes.

It changed my thinking about term limits.

I thought the Medicis were in Florence, not Venice.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I think the underlying problem is that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." People get tired of things being manipulated by untouchable politicians that somebody else elects.

If the goal is to distribute power more effectively, then I'd advocate for greater representation.

870 members of congress and 3 senators per state.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If the goal is to distribute power more effectively, then I'd advocate for greater representation.

870 members of congress and 3 senators per state.

I don't think it's distribution as much as separation.....

Specifically the corporate/gubbmint separation.....

Our government is supposed to be by the people for the people....DC is supposed to serve the citizenry at large.

The citizens of this nation, their welfare and that of the nation as a whole are of no interest to corporations beyond keeping their market secure and finding more ways to legally suck every penny out of them as possible. I mean they openly send pre-written legislation with a brick of money to legislators and they just vote on it. Company X can just go purchase laws to crush the competition and extort their customers now....

We lost the initiative when we made corporations people and allowed them to purchase our government from us wholesale. They exported our economy to china and now charge us a premium for the privilege of living in their presence.

LOL it's amusingly depressing.....and all so apparent esp in the ultra busy big bux cities, watching all the lemmings out crushing the clock at 60+ hrs a week so they can be house/car/gadget poor, while their masters make 100-10,000 times what they make off their work.....fuckin' depressing.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Well if nothing else make it twice as expensive to buy, harder to gerrymander and easier to get a third/smaller party to hold a federal office.

I think America needs that sort of change in the worst way to get closer to the ideal of "DC is supposed to serve the citizenry at large."

 

[patient1]

The citizens of this nation, their welfare and that of the nation as a whole are of no interest to corporations beyond keeping their market secure and finding more ways to legally suck every penny out of them as possible. I mean they openly send pre-written legislation with a brick of money to legislators and they just vote on it. Company X can just go purchase laws to crush the competition and extort their customers now....

We lost the initiative when we made corporations people and allowed them to purchase our government from us wholesale. They exported our economy to china and now charge us a premium for the privilege of living in their presence.

Quoting because it's worth quoting.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Well if nothing else make it twice as expensive to buy, harder to gerrymander and easier to get a third/smaller party to hold a federal office.

I think America needs that sort of change in the worst way to get closer to the ideal of "DC is supposed to serve the citizenry at large."

That won't do shit and neither will any fuckin' 3rd party....as long as the elected officials are responsible to big mOniez profit margins above all others this issue will persist. Plain and simple the congress critters need to be made public servants again, not legal sharks working for big biz mafia style.

Greed is eternal and unrelenting, the MONEY must be cut off....corporate/elected official interactions MUST be separated before any REAL change/progress can be made...that's all there is to it.

Big picture man...as long as cash is king the rule will be ruthless.

Quoting because it's worth quoting.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/809/happy-oh-stop-it-you.png

 

[Sean Renaud]

While there are things I've seen suggested that MIGHT work I'm not sure what you could really do to separate big bucks from government. Though eliminating Citizens United would be a nice place to start.

 

[BotanyBoy]

While there are things I've seen suggested that MIGHT work I'm not sure what you could really do to separate big bucks from government. Though eliminating Citizens United would be a nice place to start.

Corporations are no longer people....no more campaign contributions.

Run for public office? Do it digitally on the public website/TV channel.

NO fucking reason on earth they need 180 bizzllion fucking dollars to roll around giving shitty speeches which never amount to more than a big pile of bullshit from any of them to get elected. Then after they get in office they spend 80% of their time raising more money....un-fucking-believable. That bullshit needs to come to a screeching fuckin' hault all over.

Oh and the job only pays GS5 rates/bennies. No special perks...

Export jobs? Better take your company and all your shit with you.....China is playing just dirty as all fuck, time to bring the fuckin' pain. Actually fuck that I say we just tell them to point blank cut the bullshit or we will just hit the E Z cheat and level that ass.