U.S. Term Limits: Citizen Legislators, Not Career Politicians

I agree with you Clint, an informed and participating electorate is an indispensible part of the scheme of our political system.

No one should be allowed to vote if they can't name...

I wouldnt go that far, but rather I propose that people be encouraged to learn more about candidates, that civic education be returned to school curriculums, that more town hall style meetings between local and national officials and the electorate be scheduled regularly, and good old fashion individual responsibility!

I wouldnt go that far

Actually, I think it would be a very simple, easy test. It could be on the ballot and if a voter misses more than one the ballot isn't counted. It would be fair to everyone.

I agree that civic education should be returned to schools. If it was the test would be easy for people who are able to reason well enough to vote.

The best way to get more town hall meetings would be to limit the amount of advertising candidates can buy. If they wanted to get their message out they would have to do it in person and it would level the playing field.

You don't force anyone to do anything. If voting is important to someone they will learn the information they need to vote. If it isn't important they will stay home or take the chance their ballot won't count because they didn't care enough. The test would be given to everyone and determine if they are minimally cognizant before they just vote for a name that sounds good or because they like the picture they saw.

What is exclusionary or elitist about wanting the participants in these very important processes to have at least a little bit of knowledge before they vote on things that change all of our lives?

Do I sense fear that an informed vote would take things in the wrong direction?

People who can't read are given help in answering questions like which candidate they want to vote for. In the same way, why can't they answer some simple questions to see if they are aware enough to make informed decisions when they vote.

I agree that we should limit the amount of money a candidate can spend.

I like the resume idea except that, by your own standard, people who can't read will be left out.

How do people who can't read, vote? They have someone read to them. That person could read the questions too.

I am real sorry to disappoint you Clint but tests of any kind would destroy the voting process. Just like the literacy tests in the south were designed to discourage voting among the black population, your test would be perverted to prevent a group from voting.

I disagree with the whole concept, people who live here have a right to vote, whether they are informed or not. Once you take away one persons right to vote you are on the path to tyranny.

Clint - to answer your question many people fill out the sample ballot at home (often with help - this is where the various right wing "voters guides" came about - for people who can but will not or do not read)

The problem with your proposal is that it would require the entrenched to cut off their own life-line--not very likely. Its the same stumbling block we face when trying to enact ethics reforms. Somehow we have to get a non-party organization (meaning not congresssmen) to have ssufficient authority to make these proposals and the muscle to get them passed. Now a days all we have is "citizen groups" that can presure congress, but have no ultimate power to make fundamental changes.

P D - the problem with what you say, and this article; is that you say we have so many incumbents -- and fail to say why that is necessarily a bad thing. The premise is that you believe it is a bad thing, therefore it is so.

The reason so many incumbents are reelected is that most people are satisfied with their own representative; they just don't like the other guy's incumbents. But guess what? He likes his incumbent and doesn't like yours.

It's an inherently dumb idea

eriq, I don't think it's that so many are happy with their incumbent, but too lazy to investigate or research... too easy to look for that familiar name they've seen on so many road signs or just look for the "R" or "D" next to their name.

If you think term limits are a dumb idea, how about making it a volunteer position? Take away the retirement pay for life and other perks... maybe you'll get someone in there who really wants to SERVE the people, not RULE them! What's the main thing people complain about politicians? They're all liars and selfserving b*st*rds! How do we fix that?

Here is the problem -- "What's the main thing people complain about politicians? They're all liars and selfserving b*st*rds!" - but they don't say that about their own incumbent, who has done a good job for them.

This is a part of "the grass is always greener on the other side of the street" syndrome -- people are really complaining that they don't get their way and blaming the other guy's incumbent. It will always be here, even with term limits; it will be the other guy's fault (not the fact that your idea is unpopular, unproductive, etc.)

This is a perception problem fed by a corrupt sensationalist media. Poll after poll has shown that the reason those incumbents get reelected is that by and large the majority of people in that district are happy with them - or not unhappy enough to look for an alternative

Term limits are silly; you are limiting yourself from voting for the most successful people and inflicting mediocrity on the system - it's a solution in search of a problem and counter to democracy

Exactly why is this entrenching neccessary? Because in order to get something passed you have to get the votes by making trades. This is where the pork comes in. I will pay you off for your vote on something that is not good enough or important enough to stand individual scrutiny. Stripping the Federal Government of the ability to tack free condoms onto defense spending bills would go a long way to bringing about honest debate on whether a bill is worthy of merit.

By limiting terms you dis-assemble this BS way of horse trading for support of "Bridges to Nowhere".

I fail to see how changing the person eliminates the concept of give and take - that is a silly comment. Step back and take a look at it; silly

LoL! eriq if these fools go in knowing that in 4-6 years they are out the door don't you think they will learn to streamline the process? Granted it will take a while to unlearn the teachings of 200+ years but they will eventually figure out that if they do their jobs instead of chasing donations they will actually be able to do some good!

There really is no need for give-and-take on good bills benefitting the whole nation. Any other bills shouldn't even be considered without the demand coming from the nations populace. Want to do a Titmouse study? Need more money for it than what is in the NSF budget? Buy some TV time or ad time and get the public to support it instead of trying to sneak it into a bill as an amendment hoping no one notices it.

"don't you think they will learn to streamline the process?" - NO, it would not logically make a difference; in fact this could encourage the delay gambits if delay meant defeat; it would continue the gridlock. I see no logical reason to assume it would make a difference - the reason for vote trading will still exist

Yes there is need for give - and - take on any bill; if only because of egos, let alone the partisan games that would likely be increased because you lose your "institutional memory" (nobody is around that remembers all the previous failures) -- which goes to the dictum those who fail to learn the lessons of the past are doomed to defeat them.

There is no good reason for term limits but sever bad ones -- this is a train wreck looking for somewhere to happen.

If you believe this would solve anything look at the states that have term limits like California for example --- damm stupid idea

No what is sgtupid is holding up one states problems as an example when so many others have made it work:

Many states have Term Limits for their state, county and city officials. Twenty-two states representing nearly half of Congress had passed term limits on their representatives by 1994. The reasons why more states do not have Term Limits is that their state judges have ruled against them. This we feel is still part of the “old cronyism” of the two major political parties. The two major political parties do not want to lose their grip of government at all levels (city, county, state or federal).

Source

And this part bears repeating!:

"The two major political parties do not want to lose their grip of government at all levels (city, county, state or federal)."

Check out the link it will give you some very good reasons why your arguement does not hold water.

Again you don't understand what anyone but you is saying

"making term limits work" is not the same as making government work any better with term limits - yet another logical fallacy

The reasons more states do not have term limits is that they do not solve any problems; in fact they create problems

Why do you have this belief that voters do not know what they are doing so you want to limit who they can vote for?

This has nothing to do with the two major parties - regardless of term limits they will still have control; just with different players

NO, your argument holds no water, it makes no sense. There is no logic to the notion that having less experienced (and therefore less knowledgeable) people in a legislature makes it operate any better or pass any better laws.

This is ignorance and childishness in the extreme

Again you don't understand what anyone but you is saying

So clear the air with facts instead of:

This is ignorance and childishness in the extreme

such trollish behavior eriq! Insulting other peoples opinions because they aren't blinded by your BS isn't winning any converts but of course I would expect no less from someone who consistently acts this way!

The reasons more states do not have term limits is that they do not solve any problems

Doh! For you Homer here I'll quote it again:

Twenty-two states representing nearly half of Congress had passed term limits on their representatives by 1994

But just in case you think that old 1994 article is too outdated for you, try this one instead:

Polling shows that term limits is just as popular in the states in which they exist as they were when the laws were first passed.

These alarming numbers cause fear for career politicians, which is why they are the ones who seek to eliminate term limits. US Term Limits continues to be the leader in blocking politicians, lobbyists and special interests from repealing term limits for their own personal gain.

Source

And Finally:

Why do you have this belief that voters do not know what they are doing so you want to limit who they can vote for?

Well first if I actually could trust a voting machine I probably wouldn't care as much. Wait, strike that! Yes I would because we all know that the candidates with the biggest Campaign War Chest usually wins. Now how do they raise all that money? By selling themselves. Besides it is the DNC and RNC that limit the choices not term limits.

So how does crow taste?

LMAO - you seriously should get into comedy; that is the place for parodies such as this. Ignore the facts, that is great comedy. This looks like a Colbert Report piece

Ignore the facts

Wouldn't want to take your job from ya-there's enough unemployment going around as it is! ;op

P.S. to everyone else; I told ya he wouldn't read it! HeHe! Xo)

It's easier to deny if you can honestly say "I never heard that!"

You are quite welcome! Let's see how long it takes eriq to figure out the

I told ya he wouldn't read it!

part of the comment!

Knock off the childish comments; you just don't get it. Any limit is a limit on democracy, you are telling people they can not vote for people with experience.

This can only help the lobbyists

NO, this would have nothing to do with gridlock, NO this would not help third parties (in fact it would make it even harder to get on the ballot) and NO there is no positive thing to be had from limiting terms.

Like Mark Twain once said, "I do not tolerate fools well". You are drinking the kool aid. You need to step back and find objective sources or just learn a little logic; P's and Q's, and you will see that these claims are completely beyond logic; impossible

Yep he still hasn't found the meaning so he still hasn't done any research! Trolling for Trolls is so much fun! :o)

BTW Kool Aid taste better with rum and coke!

establish an independent commission, outside Congress to investigate fraud, corruption etc. Eliminate the Ethics committee in both the Senate and House, you cant have crooks judging crooks

Having politicians be the ones to investigate their own corruption is probably the biggest abuse of legislative power since the clandestine passing of the UnStilulating Bill.

The cool part would be if Barb Boxer would have to address the judge as Your honour:

Her head would explode similar to a fembot in an Austin Powers movie. Boxer hardly seems like a warm and fuzzy liberal that enjoys life. She would prefer if the judge would address her as "The Dutchess" or "Madame Excellency."

I like the idea of a special commission, a citizens' commission--not more politicians with their own agendas.

Prospective lawyers have to take a course and pass a Bar Exam on Ethics and Professional Responsibilities--why dont elected officials. At the very least they then wont be able to say "I diddnt know what I was doing was unethical, illegal or immoral." We have to hold them to the standards they pledge to uphold.