term limits

[junk]

what would stop Indiana from creating a law that would limit how many times a person could be elected to represent us in congress ? Washington will never put in term limits . If we did it on a state level , it might catch on in other states .

 

[Indyhd]

I actually proposed this to my Indiana House rep.

 

[ATM]

What would stop Indiana from electing the same person to represent us in congress again and again?

Do we really need another law to save us from our own poor choices?

 

[hoosierdoc]

Do we really need another law to save us from our own poor choices?

You're right, better make it a constitutional amendment

 

[Indyhd]

I've always thought that most elected House and Senate member initially are going to Washington with pure intent. Once they get there the long term members and their parties actually corrupt them.
How else can you explain the voting strictly by party affiliation ?

 

[historian]

We have term limits. Two years for House, Six for Senate. Don't like them, primary them, vote against them in the primary. Vote against them in the general.

 

[churchmouse]

What would stop Indiana from electing the same person to represent us in congress again and again?

Do we really need another law to save us from our own poor choices?

Bingo. We already have term limits people.....the primary's and the booth itself. Use them.

 

[churchmouse]

We have term limits. Two years for House, Six for Senate. Don't like them, primary them, vote against them in the primary. Vote against them in the general.

Scooped again dang it.

So many people do not understand the power we hold over those we put into power.

 

[historian]

Scooped again dang it.

So many people do not understand the power we hold over those we put into power.

That is because it is generally this common problem. "I hate congress, but my congressman is ok. The rest of them are bums!"

A good study on this back in 2013. Congress has a 15% approval rating, but individuals liked their congressman 2 to 1

Americans Down on Congress, OK With Own Representative

 

[AtTheMurph]

Term limits are treating the symptom not the disease.

The real disease is how much power the Federal government has assumed beyond its enumerated powers. Reign that power back and all these rent seekers will flee and being an elected official will again be a service to ones country and not a path to untold wealth.

Reign in the power and stop wasting time and rhetoric on meaningless diversions like term limits.

 

[BugI02]

Well said

AtTheMurph Hmmm.

 

[churchmouse]

Term limits are treating the symptom not the disease.

The real disease is how much power the Federal government has assumed beyond its enumerated powers. Reign that power back and all these rent seekers will flee and being an elected official will again be a service to ones country and not a path to untold wealth.

Reign in the power and stop wasting time and rhetoric on meaningless diversions like term limits.

This power has come slowly over time by the corrupt career politicians we have not cycled out. It is a catch 22 and yes I totally agree. We no longer have a Governing body. It has been replaced by a malignant tumor sucking the very life put of this country.

 

[jamil]

I am evolving on this. I've opposed term limits for years on principle. I think we all agree that congress and especially long-lived congressmen have way too much power. I'm not sure any of us would argue against limiting their power. So how?

What would stop Indiana from electing the same person to represent us in congress again and again?

Do we really need another law to save us from our own poor choices?

To answer the question, this is what makes people elect the same loser over and over and over.
|
v

That is because it is generally this common problem. "I hate congress, but my congressman is ok. The rest of them are bums!"

A good study on this back in 2013. Congress has a 15% approval rating, but individuals liked their congressman 2 to 1

Americans Down on Congress, OK With Own Representative

People almost can't not continue to elect the same loser over and over. They think he or she is, if not a winner, at least less of a loser than the other schmuck in the race. And it's almost always just one other schmuck who's in it.

It's pretty obvious that humans still have tribalism in our DNA. I think we're eager enough to form tribes naturally, but when they're presented to us as a dichotomy, people flock to one or the other tribe. The two-party system is a dichotomy of tribes. When we're given a binary choice, the choice resolves to one of two, and the one who is already in office, will most likely win it. Which brings up primaries.

We have term limits. Two years for House, Six for Senate. Don't like them, primary them, vote against them in the primary. Vote against them in the general.

In the primary, if I don't like the incumbent, and I don't like the challenger--it's almost always just one challenger, but whatever. Then what? Primaries don't really help because of a lot of reasons. Party influence is a big reason. Incumbents have a distinct advantage over challengers, especially at the primary level. But you get a guy in there that the party really likes, and the party will do what it can to tip the scales in his or her favor.

If we had a non-binary voting system, that would be a more effective natural term limit. The primary system in practice is a ****ty term limit. The real fix would be eliminating the artificial tribal dichotomy and go to something like a rank-order system where all the candidates go head to head to head in the same race. It would be much easier to throw the bums out if we don't have to fight the tribal instinct to pick just one side of a dichotomy.

But that fix isn't going to happen. People are too much into their own side of the binary. It's us against them. It's a binary collective. You're either for us or against us. There's no choices in between. It's just not practical to expect people to start making better voting choices now. What a great super-power that would be to lead with. People just don't do it. They're not going to do it. Everyone says of everyone else, "wake up people!". Well, they all think they are woke already. People won't suddenly start using the super-power they've always had.

So yes. These days I'm thinking we probably need to limit how long a person can be in congress to prevent them from accumulating too much power. Because that's the only way that has any chance of happening. We're not going to implement a less tribal voting system. We're not going to just wake up and make better choices. As divided as we're becoming, the problem we have is likely just to get worse, not better.

So. Even though I oppose term limits in principle, practically, it's probably the most achievable way to limit the power of elected individuals. But rather than saying how many terms they can serve, I think I'd rather set how many years they can serve. So maybe 12 years for both senators and house reps.

 

[jamil]

Term limits are treating the symptom not the disease.

The real disease is how much power the Federal government has assumed beyond its enumerated powers. Reign that power back and all these rent seekers will flee and being an elected official will again be a service to ones country and not a path to untold wealth.

Reign in the power and stop wasting time and rhetoric on meaningless diversions like term limits.

I think right now, treating the symptom is the only achievable action. Are you woke? I think I'm woke. People telling everyone to wake up and vote better isn't going to solve it. Everyone thinks everyone else is the problem.

It's doubtful that term limits could even happen. No one in congress really wants that, especially the ones who would be over the max term. So even that as a solution is dubious. But of the solutions--even if it's just treating symptoms--some kind of term limits is the most practically achievable, and even that isn't all that achievable.

 

[BugI02]

I am evolving on this. I've opposed term limits for years on principle. I think we all agree that congress and especially long-lived congressmen have way too much power. I'm not sure any of us would argue against limiting their power. So how?



To answer the question, this is what makes people elect the same loser over and over and over.
|
v


People almost can't not continue to elect the same loser over and over. They think he or she is, if not a winner, at least less of a loser than the other schmuck in the race. And it's almost always just one other schmuck who's in it.

It's pretty obvious that humans still have tribalism in our DNA. I think we're eager enough to form tribes naturally, but when they're presented to us as a dichotomy, people flock to one or the other tribe. The two-party system is a dichotomy of tribes. When we're given a binary choice, the choice resolves to one of two, and the one who is already in office, will most likely win it. Which brings up primaries.



In the primary, if I don't like the incumbent, and I don't like the challenger--it's almost always just one challenger, but whatever. Then what? Primaries don't really help because of a lot of reasons. Party influence is a big reason. Incumbents have a distinct advantage over challengers, especially at the primary level. But you get a guy in there that the party really likes, and the party will do what it can to tip the scales in his or her favor.

If we had a non-binary voting system, that would be a more effective natural term limit. The primary system in practice is a ****ty term limit. The real fix would be eliminating the artificial tribal dichotomy and go to something like a rank-order system where all the candidates go head to head to head in the same race. It would be much easier to throw the bums out if we don't have to fight the tribal instinct to pick just one side of a dichotomy.

But that fix isn't going to happen. People are too much into their own side of the binary. It's us against them. It's a binary collective. You're either for us or against us. There's no choices in between. It's just not practical to expect people to start making better voting choices now. What a great super-power that would be to lead with. People just don't do it. They're not going to do it. Everyone says of everyone else, "wake up people!". Well, they all think they are woke already. People won't suddenly start using the super-power they've always had.

So yes. These days I'm thinking we probably need to limit how long a person can be in congress to prevent them from accumulating too much power. Because that's the only way that has any chance of happening. We're not going to implement a less tribal voting system. We're not going to just wake up and make better choices. As divided as we're becoming, the problem we have is likely just to get worse, not better.

So. Even though I oppose term limits in principle, practically, it's probably the most achievable way to limit the power of elected individuals. But rather than saying how many terms they can serve, I think I'd rather set how many years they can serve. So maybe 12 years for both senators and house reps.

While I'm warming to the idea of non-binary voting (even a viable third party would convert political calculus to a form of three body problem with vastly more complicated underlying mathematics) as long as the costs of being on the "losing" side seem so dear, people will not be all that excited about it

I think those that advocate drastically pruning the federal government's enormous reach are on the best track to tackle this. When the stakes are less existential it would be easier to implement reforms such as you advocate

When it's a fight to the death, that's when it becomes all about one's own tribe and only one's own tribe

 

[Hoosierkav]

Perhaps we need to ask our State and Federal representatives "If you had only one term to accomplish your vision, what would you do differently?"

Most of them worry about their next election, either how their votes will impact it, or how to raise funds and schmooze with all the big names, to get the funds, so they can do it all over again a year or two after the election.

 

[Libertarian01]

I wholeheartedly agree that the election should be a defacto term limit, but in reality it is not. We are gerrymandered to the point that a significant number of democrats would have to vote republican in some districts while in others a significant number of republicans would have to vote democrat to make elections anywhere near a term limit reality. That just isn't going to happen.

Back in the 90's there was an election cycle where it was all over the news to "THROW THE BUMS OUT!" Everyone was mad. So mad that there was a 98% reelection rate! Yep, so much for throwing them out.

You also have problems with the seniority getting more and more power. Those most senior chair the committees. So the party machines invest a tremendous amount influence to keep their folks coming back and steering things the parties way.

While I certainly favor the Libertarian party, the reality is that no third party has significant power. Even in this last election when both presidential candidates were despised by many Gary Johnson didn't do as well as he should have given the unfavorable ratings for Trump and Clinton. That said, if a third party were to come on parity with either the dems or repubs then the gerrymandering would be useless. You can't gerrymander counting for three (3) parties.

What I would rather see is a limit on consecutive terms. A congressman could serve three (3) terms then must step out of the race for a term. A senator two (2) terms. In that way if people loved their candidate that could keep getting him back, but he wouldn't have the unfair advantage that comes with staying in for decades. It would be a compromise to absolute term limits.

However, as we do have term limits for the president and some other state and local offices I don't see it as inconsistent to have it for additional offices as well.

Regards,

Doug

 

[edporch]

what would stop Indiana from creating a law that would limit how many times a person could be elected to represent us in congress ? Washington will never put in term limits . If we did it on a state level , it might catch on in other states .

This issue has already been covered by the Supreme Court.
States can't impose their own term limits on Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton

 

[edporch]

As to elections being de-facto term limits, this is true in theory, but in reality it's not an even playing field to unseat an incumbent.
For example, factors like name recognition, and party backing during the Primary to name a couple.

 

[churchmouse]

As to elections being de-facto term limits, this is true in theory, but in reality it's not an even playing field to unseat an incumbent.
For example, factors like name recognition, and party backing during the Primary to name a couple.

Lazy uninformed lever pulling voters is the main issue.