Herpes more popular than Congress

madviking

north american scum
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
11,365
Location
the place where he inserted the blade
Zelda

Moderator Action: Article removed; see OT rule 6b. Feel free to edit back in an abridged version. :)

The thing is, most people still think their own representative can do no wrong. The gulf between individual approval and Congressional approval is still immense. And you can also hearken back to the Men In Black quote: "A person is smart, but people are dumb, finicky, dangerous animals..."
 
For all the author's fiery rhetoric I am completely unimpressed. Term limits, seriously? That's all you got?
 
Indeed. Term limits would be tolerable, but runs the risk of being counterproductive (sitting in a legislature isn't easy work). The absolute first issue that needs to be addressed is campaign finance.
 
Term limits would remove the few good legislators that get into office, and would make second terms a joke. There would be absolutely no penalty to shilling out for absolutely anything for a huge proportion of legislators. At least they must givea modicum of support to theirbackers right now.
 
The author doesn't approach the problem from the right angle: he tries to improve Congress, whereas a more efficient way of tackling this would be to increase the severity, or frequency, of herpes. Studies have shown that contracting herpes is significantly easier than introducing term limits.

How best to make herpes more irritating should be left open for debate, but I suggest bleach, rock salt, or mandatory porcupine application.
 
There's pro/cons to term limits.

The pro is politicians don't waste so much time devoted to the next election.

The con is that they can use their final term to pass whatever they want without fear of being reprimanded for it.

I'd change the House, personally. Make their terms 4 years, with half the house up every 2. The way things are now, Representatives only sit for a few months before they have to start planning for the next election cycle. It's insane.

Either way, it would be sweet if we could actually lock the doors to Congress. Unfortunately, I'm sure that counts as "illegal." They are accountable to the People solely on election day; otherwise, they are untouchable demigods.

Gotta love hierarchy.
 
Either way, it would be sweet if we could actually lock the doors to Congress. Unfortunately, I'm sure that counts as "illegal." They are accountable to the People solely on election day; otherwise, they are untouchable demigods.

So the solution to that problem is to increase the time between election cycles!? The reason terms are so short compared to the Senate or White House is because they were there to specifically represent the people. And people move from district to district or have changing opinions and we have new births and deaths. Whereas the Senate represents the states (or are supposed to). So 6 year terms work better because there is less change with the state than the people.
 
So the solution to that problem is to increase the time between election cycles!? The reason terms are so short compared to the Senate or White House is because they were there to specifically represent the people. And people move from district to district or have changing opinions and we have new births and deaths. Whereas the Senate represents the states (or are supposed to). So 6 year terms work better because there is less change with the state than the people.

Notice that I said half the House would be up every two years, rather than the whole enchilada as it is now. That's plenty of capability to shift the House's makeup. It strikes a balance, furthermore, by allowing Representatives to actually spend 3, rather than 1, years focusing on governing. Right now, Representatives are up as a whole every two years, which means they spend about as much time campaigning as governing.

We stay true to the ideals of popular will, yet also allow more efficiency in that they're not constantly campaigning.

Of course, I also want to make it so the House is half PR and half elected by district, so I'm not quite sure...

Speaking of, that's the OTHER function of the House - to represent local interests.
 
Wait, you guys re-elect your entire lower house every two years? I thought it was phased, but maybe I'm thinking of the Senate.

And yes, proportional representation would be great. MMP FTW.
 
Campaign finance reform would do a lot more than just adding term limits. Making it so that a congressman is not constantly campaigning and like half the problems with Washington will disappear.

That, and gerrymandering needs to be dealt with.
 
Wait, you guys re-elect your entire lower house every two years? I thought it was phased, but maybe I'm thinking of the Senate.

House = Whole house up every 2 years
Senate = 1/3 of the house up every 2 years; Senators serve six year terms
Presidency = Serves four years; can serve two terms max
Justices = Rule for life unless removed or retiring; appointed by the President with the Senate's consent

The net result is the government is capable of shifting exactly every two years, with an insulated Judiciary on the sidelines.

And yes, proportional representation would be great. MMP FTW.

It's quickly shot down by "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and the idea that it would possibly give a few seats to fringe loonies.

What's funny is those same people will talk about how perfect the Founders were, ignoring that pluralism was apparently a popular idea amongst them. Translation: we should be expanding the number of ideas and parties, not shrinking them.

Campaign finance reform would do a lot more than just adding term limits. Making it so that a congressman is not constantly campaigning and like half the problems with Washington will disappear.

This is an issue regarding the House. I'd extend the term to four years to remedy it. It also keeps the convenient system where there's an election every two years.

That, and gerrymandering needs to be dealt with.

Easily eliminated if the House is elected from the entire state; this has the con of reducing the ability of local interests to reach out. At that point, you may as well abolish the Senate.
 
This is an issue regarding the House. I'd extend the term to four years to remedy it. It also keeps the convenient system where there's an election every two years.

How does that work exactly? 4 year terms with elections every two years?

I don't mind the 2 year term limit, keeps things flowing, what bugs me is that in order to get reelected congressmen need to raise thousands of dollars and constantly be in campaign mode. Extending the years will still mean they're stuck in campaign mode, just for longer, which is worse. If people in congress no longer had to worry about money in order to get reelected, then maybe they could do their job; this also comes with the bonus of decreasing the amount of power lobbyists have.

Easily eliminated if the House is elected from the entire state; this has the con of reducing the ability of local interests to reach out. At that point, you may as well abolish the Senate.

Yeah, but as you said, you lose the entire point of the house, which is to represent the people, not the state. Keep the districts, just make sure that redistricting isn't in the hands of the people in power, nor anyone who could be in power. Either a bipartisan or a nonpartisan committee should handle that stuff.
 
How does that work exactly? 4 year terms with elections every two years?

You stagger it.

The Senate has 6 year terms but elections every 2 years, because of the way their terms expire. The House would run on the same principle - post-reform, half the House would serve 2 years, the other half 4, and from then on, each would serve 4 years. The result is half the House is up every 2 years. (This is how we set up the Senate, too - the first Senate had a branch that served 2 years, another that served 4, and then a final that served 6)

I don't mind the 2 year term limit, keeps things flowing, what bugs me is that in order to get reelected congressmen need to raise thousands of dollars and constantly be in campaign mode.

Extending the years will still mean they're stuck in campaign mode, just for longer, which is worse. If people in congress no longer had to worry about money in order to get reelected, then maybe they could do their job; this also comes with the bonus of decreasing the amount of power lobbyists have.

I personally don't see why altering the terms needs to be exclusive from campaign finance; I think they could work well together.

As for serving four years extending campaign mode - is the President always in campaign mode?

Term limits, on top of four year terms and campaign finance, would also eliminate their need to campaign. If running the chance they might go overboard in their final days, as Presidents often do.

Yeah, but as you said, you lose the entire point of the house, which is to represent the people, not the state. Keep the districts, just make sure that redistricting isn't in the hands of the people in power, nor anyone who could be in power. Either a bipartisan or a nonpartisan committee should handle that stuff.

How do you decide who gets on the committee? ;)

Another idea is to abolish state-allotted representatives entirely. Have the House elected by a national electorate(likely party-list and whatnot because of the sheer scale). This has the cost of eliminating the district-based interests.

There's all sorts of ways to re-shuffle a bicameral legislature. One idea of mine would be to have half the house be elected nationally and the other half by districts, a la Germany's system. Then you have the Senate on top of that. You represent districts, the nation as a whole, and the States.

Stagger elections would still be possible; one year just have those Representatives who represent districts run, then two years later have national Representatives run, then two years after that, the district-based reps run, and so on.
 
The thing is, most people still think their own representative can do no wrong. The gulf between individual approval and Congressional approval is still immense. And you can also hearken back to the Men In Black quote: "A person is smart, but people are dumb, finicky, dangerous animals..."

As Whomp pointed out, lots of people don't trust financial institutions at all, but they do trust their financial advisers who work for these same institutions.

This concept of trusting your guy but not the group he's a part of is across different industries, organizations, and systems. However, this is not universally true. Just for institutions that seem to get on by regardless of their popularity.

What do you all think this means?
 
For one, it's possibly that personal connection - politicians always try to make themselves out as men of the People, oddly enough.

Secondly, it's bringing home the bacon. Congressmen and Senators bring a lot of money back to their home states in pet projects and stimulus money and whatnot. While we're decrying a one trillion dollar stimulus package, we want to make sure we get a few billion of it at least.

Kind of odd how that works out...

Everyone hates the deficit but loves their pet programs.
 
Multimember districts with proportional representation could be a good thing, but not if they have any reliance on party machines. Party List based PR is completely unacceptable. The PR variant of Range Voting would be excellent. (From the voter's perspective this works just like normal Range Voting. Each voter scores each candidate independently. The candidate with the highest overall score wins a seat. The ballots are then counted again in the next round to select another candidate, but not before the ballots are weighted so that support for a winning candidate makes the vote count for less in selecting the next candidates.)


Rather than term limits, how about we completely prohibit incumbents from fundraising or campaigning for election? The oath of office could be made to require them to focus on doing the job rather seeking their next job (whether in the same office or not). We don't necessarily have to prohibit the electorate from sending them back if they have great enough name recognition and popularity to win without a campaign. If we move to Range Voting then multiple candidates of the same party do not hurt each other's chances of victory, so this handicap would not unfairly advantage the opposition.



I also remain firmly of the opinion that the electorate should have more information about the candidates available for review in the voting booth. Each candidate should have to submit an essay (possibly accompanied by an affidavit, so that false claims count as perjury) explaining his or her platform and qualifications for the office. These would be submitted with ample time for them to be publicly vetted by the media, and would also appear on the ballots themselves for the benefit of those voters with poor memories or no time to research every candidate for every office. This would drastically reduce the need for expensive campaigns, and thus the power of those financing them.
 
When I suggested party list, I meant if the PR was on a national scale, where it's simply too massive to really have any specific candidature. I'm sure any German posters would be able to explain the system; I assumed party list would be the only real alternative.

Of course, range voting definitely has appeal, especially with regards to single offices. The President should be whoever enjoys the most support from the most people.

Prohibition of campaigning in general sounds like a fair idea, actually. However, the hundreds of candidates will clamor for the national spotlight, most likely. Perhaps incumbents should be listed at the ballots, at least. Based on conditions in the area, people will vote accordingly.

Though including essays at the ballot also sounds like a good, if simple, idea. Assuming voting is computerised, it is even easier. One issue will be how much paper that would take on a nationwide scale. Of course, the fact lots of money is freed up that would have been used for campaigning could offset it.
 
Back
Top Bottom