Term Limits the only solution for real change

[Iriemon]

Obviously your person anecdote is not representative of everyone. I suspect some Libertarians would like to have a representative in DC, and the poll numbers suggest that they should.

Then they're going to have to concentrate their efforts to winning in a single congressional district which is the smallest Federal political subdivision. I mentioned our own case because if it could be done it should be able to get done here, one of the "Greenest" "Libertarian-est" cities in the country; we are more than tolerant of the novel here. We're not known as "San Francisco East" for nothing. These two ideas, though strongly felt by a minority, don't have the cache to win a house seat....as of yet. Keep trying, is all I can offer to you. I can offer you one other suggestion: read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. It might shed some light on the mind of the "true believer" through history. For the Constitutional issues involved, one need only read the US Constitution.

So what is the plan? Have all the Libertarians in the state move to that district?

 

[American Horse]

Obviously your person anecdote is not representative of everyone. I suspect some Libertarians would like to have a representative in DC, and the poll numbers suggest that they should.

Then they're going to have to concentrate their efforts to winning in a single congressional district which is the smallest Federal political subdivision. I mentioned our own case because if it could be done it should be able to get done here, one of the "Greenest" "Libertarian-est" cities in the country; we are more than tolerant of the novel here. We're not known as "San Francisco East" for nothing. These two ideas, though strongly felt by a minority, don't have the cache to win a house seat....as of yet. Keep trying, is all I can offer to you. I can offer you one other suggestion: read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. It might shed some light on the mind of the "true believer" through history. For the Constitutional issues involved, one need only read the US Constitution.

So what is the plan? Have all the Libertarians in the state move to that district?

That's not a bad plan. Some are doing that already in respect to certain states, and gaining political ascendance there. Many of our long time residents feel that is what has happened in our own locale. My own thinking is that replacing one of the two parties is the best route to go. And the best time to get that done is during a crisis vis-a-vis slavery and then the Civil War.

There is more disatisfaction in the R party than in the D party. Any party is a coalition of interests. No single (special) interest can unite half the population into a singular political movement. The broader the interest the better the opportunity. Especially so when certain fundamental ideas of those "interests" are in deep conflict with the mood or beliefs of a majority, with a feeling that the normalcy of their lives will be serously interrupted.

 

[Iriemon]

Then they're going to have to concentrate their efforts to winning in a single congressional district which is the smallest Federal political subdivision. I mentioned our own case because if it could be done it should be able to get done here, one of the "Greenest" "Libertarian-est" cities in the country; we are more than tolerant of the novel here. We're not known as "San Francisco East" for nothing. These two ideas, though strongly felt by a minority, don't have the cache to win a house seat....as of yet. Keep trying, is all I can offer to you. I can offer you one other suggestion: read "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer. It might shed some light on the mind of the "true believer" through history. For the Constitutional issues involved, one need only read the US Constitution.

So what is the plan? Have all the Libertarians in the state move to that district?

That's not a bad plan. Some are doing that already in respect to certain states, and gaining political ascendance there. Many of our long time residents feel that is what has happened in our own locale. My own thinking is that replacing one of the two parties is the best route to go. And the best time to get that done is during a crisis vis-a-vis slavery and then the Civil War.

There is more disatisfaction in the R party than in the D party. Any party is a coalition of interests. No single (special) interest can unite half the population into a singular political movement. The broader the interest the better the opportunity. Especially so when certain fundamental ideas of those "interests" are in deep conflict with the mood or beliefs of a majority, with a feeling that the normalcy of their lives will be serously interrupted.

That's why I favor a proporational system. If Libertarians get 10% of the votes they get
10% of the seats from that state, and you don't have to change residence to get proportionate representation.

 

[American Horse]

So what is the plan? Have all the Libertarians in the state move to that district?

That's not a bad plan. Some are doing that already in respect to certain states, and gaining political ascendance there. Many of our long time residents feel that is what has happened in our own locale. My own thinking is that replacing one of the two parties is the best route to go. And the best time to get that done is during a crisis vis-a-vis slavery and then the Civil War.

There is more disatisfaction in the R party than in the D party. Any party is a coalition of interests. No single (special) interest can unite half the population into a singular political movement. The broader the interest the better the opportunity. Especially so when certain fundamental ideas of those "interests" are in deep conflict with the mood or beliefs of a majority, with a feeling that the normalcy of their lives will be serously interrupted.

That's why I favor a proporational system. If Libertarians get 10% of the votes they get
10% of the seats from that state, and you don't have to change residence to get proportionate representation.

Help me out here. How do we retain congressional seats and districts and divide them up proportionally? We approach that aim with gerrymandering (and it's easy to see the flaws in that), but to do what you would like to see happen would be a whole new system of representation, and would require a constitutional amendment that would never pass.

We could compose congressional districts in much smaller increments, of say 100,000 each but that would mean there would be 3,000 House members, and 100,000 would still be too large to suit what you'd like to see. When the country was new I believe districts comprised about 40,000 population, but as the country's population grew they came to need to represent a greater sum of people in the districts, reaching 200,000 in about the year 1900.

I'm afraid what you want is closer to a Democracy, and this is a representative Republic. I will agree that congressional districts are becoming overly large, a function of the size of the population. Still our instantaneous communications works to alleviate that. When there is no reasonable or practical way to change a system it's best to find a way to work within it.

There is a definite trend to diluted repesentation. Consider world government for instance. The national (federal government) has become too powerful in our lives. It is doing too much of what state government was intended to do. At state levels representation is much less diluted. Once states become irrelevant the democracy and freedom I'm assuming you want more of will, be all but gone. Consider the implications of not being able to move anywhere within a geography that would produce a different situation politically.

Perhaps you could name one country that now operates as you would like to see it done here. Then we could look at that has been working, and what the practical limitations have proven to be.

 

[amrchaos]

Term limits will not stop the buying and selling of political influence.

In fact, the competition will make the cost of political influence peddling CHEAPER!!

 

[Iriemon]

That's not a bad plan. Some are doing that already in respect to certain states, and gaining political ascendance there. Many of our long time residents feel that is what has happened in our own locale. My own thinking is that replacing one of the two parties is the best route to go. And the best time to get that done is during a crisis vis-a-vis slavery and then the Civil War.

There is more disatisfaction in the R party than in the D party. Any party is a coalition of interests. No single (special) interest can unite half the population into a singular political movement. The broader the interest the better the opportunity. Especially so when certain fundamental ideas of those "interests" are in deep conflict with the mood or beliefs of a majority, with a feeling that the normalcy of their lives will be serously interrupted.

That's why I favor a proporational system. If Libertarians get 10% of the votes they get
10% of the seats from that state, and you don't have to change residence to get proportionate representation.

Help me out here. How do we retain congressional seats and districts and divide them up proportionally? We approach that aim with gerrymandering (and it's easy to see the flaws in that), but to do what you would like to see happen would be a whole new system of representation, and would require a constitutional amendment that would never pass.

Well that's probably true. But then again, so would term limits.

...

Perhaps you could name one country that now operates as you would like to see it done here. Then we could look at that has been working, and what the practical limitations have proven to be.

Many European countries do.

Proportional representation is actually used by more nations than the plurality voting system. All of the members of the European Parliament, or MEPs, including those elected from constituencies in Britain, are elected by proportional representation. Proportional representation is also used in many European countries.

The dig against it:

With proportional representation, otherwise marginalized social, political and racial minorities were able to attain elected office, and this fact was ironically a key argument opponents of proportional representation used in their campaigns — "undesirables" were gaining a voice in electoral politics.

Proportional representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[American Horse]

That's why I favor a proporational system. If Libertarians get 10% of the votes they get
10% of the seats from that state, and you don't have to change residence to get proportionate representation.

Help me out here. How do we retain congressional seats and districts and divide them up proportionally? We approach that aim with gerrymandering (and it's easy to see the flaws in that), but to do what you would like to see happen would be a whole new system of representation, and would require a constitutional amendment that would never pass.

Well that's probably true. But then again, so would term limits.

...

Perhaps you could name one country that now operates as you would like to see it done here. Then we could look at that has been working, and what the practical limitations have proven to be.

Many European countries do.

Proportional representation is actually used by more nations than the plurality voting system. All of the members of the European Parliament, or MEPs, including those elected from constituencies in Britain, are elected by proportional representation. Proportional representation is also used in many European countries.

The dig against it:

With proportional representation, otherwise marginalized social, political and racial minorities were able to attain elected office, and this fact was ironically a key argument opponents of proportional representation used in their campaigns — "undesirables" were gaining a voice in electoral politics.

Proportional representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was hoping you’d pick Britain; I know that in Britain, they do have proportional representation in their house of commons, but those MPs still do have to get elected, and they no doubt have more than two parties (I'm guessing) but each MP represents a constituency geographically de-lineated very similar to our house districts. (I know a little about it because I watch Prime Minister's questions on C-SPAN). Still in the case of these Third (or other minor parties), after they succeed getting elected to a seat in parliament, since their representation is a small percentage they have to create coalitions with one of the two main parties to have any importance, say to elect a Prime-Minister as a prime example. As for the minority you seek status for, they can only achieve any political power to govern through coalitions they must form with making larger groupings. I suppose the power they have is to threaten withdrawal of support to a coalition to make their voice heard, possibly to call for a new “government” unseating a PM.

But this situation makes the PM the creature of the Parliament, that much is clearly so. In our system the president, in the main is a creature of the states. Why is that? Because a governor can achieve national status and reputation in the testing ground of the states; the states are inherently more creative than the legislative branch, and Governors, from the ranks of which most of our Presidents hail, have a different set of skills than legislators have.

But all of what you think is most important works fine in a Parliamentary system, I suppose for these minor states, like you find in Europe, (It seem to me their system has created a lot of damage over the centuries) but we have a different type system, designed for a continental power, with a separations of powers, consisting of executive/legislative/judicial branches, with a further divided bi-cameral legislature within a federal type government structure.

Almost all of what you find desirable in the parliamentary system, that you listed is possible and happens in our own legislative system except for making presidents, and they try to do that. A president can be effectively neutered by a combined effort of the two Legislative branches, even to the point of passing laws which encroach on Executive prerogatives with the power of the purse or denying appointments and treaties (like trading agreements) with advise and consent. This explains why a president must guard his prerogatives whenever they are challenged by a house and senate which don't necessarily respect a president if they can force their will on him, especially one from a different party.

But when you take a look at the US House, we seem to have no paucity of minorities represented there. Cities encompass entire Congressional districts, some cities having as many as 10 districts in a small geographical area. And out in the rural areas, Gerrymandering has accomplished about the same thing. Our own plurality system requires the formation of coalitions, which removes chaos from the process, while giving everyone a say in the process, mainly through the existing two party system, which is a system suitable for a country of 300 million.

But in the difference between these two systems don't forget that the President is the President of the United States. That seems to be a ridiculously obvious statement, but he is not yet just the President of the American People. And that seems to be what he has primarily become in the minds of the American people.

The Chief Executive or President presides over the legislative product of the representative of the states with his veto (unless over-ridden), and the administration of the government. That's why his chief deputy (as he is seen now) the, Vice President has one main duty, functioning as the President of the Senate, which is the representative body of the states and the upper house of our bicameral system. But that was a set-up consistent with the operation of a Federal Republic, which the US, happily still is.

 

[Iriemon]

Help me out here. How do we retain congressional seats and districts and divide them up proportionally? We approach that aim with gerrymandering (and it's easy to see the flaws in that), but to do what you would like to see happen would be a whole new system of representation, and would require a constitutional amendment that would never pass.

Well that's probably true. But then again, so would term limits.

...

Perhaps you could name one country that now operates as you would like to see it done here. Then we could look at that has been working, and what the practical limitations have proven to be.

Many European countries do.

Proportional representation is actually used by more nations than the plurality voting system. All of the members of the European Parliament, or MEPs, including those elected from constituencies in Britain, are elected by proportional representation. Proportional representation is also used in many European countries.

The dig against it:

With proportional representation, otherwise marginalized social, political and racial minorities were able to attain elected office, and this fact was ironically a key argument opponents of proportional representation used in their campaigns — "undesirables" were gaining a voice in electoral politics.

Proportional representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was hoping you’d pick Britain; I know that in Britain, they do have proportional representation in their house of commons, but those MPs still do have to get elected, and they no doubt have more than two parties (I'm guessing) but each MP represents a constituency geographically de-lineated very similar to our house districts. (I know a little about it because I watch Prime Minister's questions on C-SPAN). Still in the case of these Third (or other minor parties), after they succeed getting elected to a seat in parliament, since their representation is a small percentage they have to create coalitions with one of the two main parties to have any importance, say to elect a Prime-Minister as a prime example. As for the minority you seek status for, they can only achieve any political power to govern through coalitions they must form with making larger groupings. I suppose the power they have is to threaten withdrawal of support to a coalition to make their voice heard, possibly to call for a new “government” unseating a PM.

But this situation makes the PM the creature of the Parliament, that much is clearly so. In our system the president, in the main is a creature of the states. Why is that? Because a governor can achieve national status and reputation in the testing ground of the states; the states are inherently more creative than the legislative branch, and Governors, from the ranks of which most of our Presidents hail, have a different set of skill than legislators have.

But all off what you think is most important works fine in a Parliamentary system, I suppose for these minor states, like you find in Europe, (It seem to me their system has created a lot of damage over the centuries) but we have a different type system, designed for a continental power, with a separations of powers, consisting of executive/legislative/judicial branches, with a further divided bi-cameral legislature within a federal type government structure.

I did not propose a parliamentary system where the prime minister is chosen from the party or coalition in power, and nothing I've proposed would change separation of power, executive legislative or judicial branches or a divided bi-cameral legislature within a federal type structure.

Almost all of what you find desirable in the parliamentary system, you listed is possible and happens in our own legislative system except for making presidents, and they try to do that.

I don't propose a parliamentary system. I propose a proportional voting system. What we don't have is meaningful representation in our government of political views outside the two parties.

But when you take a look at the US House, we seem to have no paucity of minorities represented there.

What percentage of House members are Libertarians? Greens? Anything other than Republican or Democrat?

Cities encompass entire Congressional districts, some cities having as many as 10 districts in a small geographical area. And out in the rural areas, Gerrymandering has accomplished about the same thing. Our own plurality system requires the formation of coalitions, which removes chaos from the process, while giving everyone a say in the process, mainly through the existing two party system, which is a system suitable for a country of 300 million.

But in the difference between these two systems don't forget that the President is the President of the United States. That seems to be a ridiculously obvious statement, but he is not yet just the President of the American People. And that seems to be what he has premarily become in the minds of the American people.

The Chief Executive or President presides over the legislative product of the representative of the states with his veto (unless over-ridden), and the administration of the government. That's why his chief deputy (as he is seen now) the, Vice President has one main duty, functioning as the President of the Senate, which is the representative body of the states and the upper house of our bicameral system. But that was a set-up consistent with the operation of a Federal Republic, which the US, happily still is.

I don't propose a parliamentary system.

 

[American Horse]

I don't propose a parliamentary system.

I didn't think so but what you describe only works in a parliamentary system, so I wanted to describe the inconsistencies with that and our own. Votes in congress are cast as "ayes" and "nays"; there are only two choices.

The committee system, where the work of congress takes place, includes all realms of thought and input. We even have members or delegates from the territories providing input, questioning witnesses, etc., and now voting on what goes to the full floor (but not on a floor vote).

The majority party has the speaker's chair and committee chairs and so controls all legislation that is voted on in the house. The two parties are almost equally divided and that competition, is what drives the two parties to keep it that way, as they modify their stands on issues as they perceive a shortfall.

If a party divides into splinter groups they cannot compete for control. If you are down by one vote you become the congressional minority, and no longer control legislative output unless you can find a dissenter from the other side to vote for your speaker. That would be your smallest minority, the minority of the individual.

The minority in a coalition is extremely powerful in this system as it works right now. Just look at the power the "Greens" have in the D Party. They are pretty much writing the environmental legislation. A Congressman from Michigan who would dissent from green policies, lost his chairmanship of a committee because he might jeopardize the expectations of the green minority, which is almost a party in itself.

 

[Iriemon]

I don't propose a parliamentary system.

I didn't think so but what you describe only works in a parliamentary system, so I wanted to describe the inconsistencies with that and our own. Votes in congress are cast as "ayes" and "nays"; there are only two choices.

It doesn't work only with a parliamentary system. It is simply a system of how candidates are selected. The "aye" and "nay" voting in Congress wouldn't be any different. Why would it be?

The committee system, where the work of congress takes place, includes all realms of thought and input. We even have members or delegates from the territories providing input, questioning witnesses, etc., and now voting on what goes to the full floor (but not on a floor vote).

Yeah, there might be some modification of the committee system required. Though you certainly still could have committees. The chair would be probably be selected by majority vote.

The majority party has the speaker's chair and committee chairs and so controls all legislation that is voted on in the house. The two parties are almost equally divided and that competition, is what drives the two parties to keep it that way, as they modify their stands on issues as they perceive a shortfall.

If a party divides into splinter groups they cannot compete for control. If you are down by one vote you become the congressional minority, and no longer control legislative output unless you can find a dissenter from the other side to vote for your speaker. That would be your smallest minority, the minority of the individual.

The minority in a coalition is extremely powerful in this system as it works right now. Just look at the power the "Greens" have in the D Party. They are pretty much writing the environmental legislation. A Congressman from Michigan who would dissent from green policies, lost his chairmanship of a committee because he might jeopardize the expectations of the green minority, which is almost a party in itself.

My guess is many Greens would prefer to have actual representation in congress, as opposed to be delegated to working within one of the existing parties. If the Greens had actual seats in the HOR, the other parties would have to recognize their power to get legislation passed.

 

[NOBama]

Term limits alone will not do much, if anything, for US.

What we really need to do is take the power away from those with MONEY! IE: Corporations, the Wealthiest, and Lobbyist Groups.

The only way we could do it would be if We The People completely finance all Congressional and Presidential campaigns and implement laws that force equality for each candidate of a given race.

Until we take control away from special interests, regardless of who they are, they control us. End of story.

 

[Just A Man]

Term limits alone will not do much, if anything, for US.

What we really need to do is take the power away from those with MONEY! IE: Corporations, the Wealthiest, and Lobbyist Groups.

The only way we could do it would be if We The People completely finance all Congressional and Presidential campaigns and implement laws that force equality for each candidate of a given race.

Until we take control away from special interests, regardless of who they are, they control us. End of story.

And who would enact your laws?

Who would be in charge of enforcing your laws?

Sounds like you are just transfering power from one group to another.

I say one term and back to the private sector. No more career politicians. No pension except SS just like the rest of us. No more perks, just a pay on par with the military. No more old, cold bodies sleeping in Congress, no more arrogant narcistic goons controlling our lives, while they all become millionaires.

 

[krotchdog]

Term limits alone will not do much, if anything, for US.

What we really need to do is take the power away from those with MONEY! IE: Corporations, the Wealthiest, and Lobbyist Groups.

The only way we could do it would be if We The People completely finance all Congressional and Presidential campaigns and implement laws that force equality for each candidate of a given race.

Until we take control away from special interests, regardless of who they are, they control us. End of story.

And who would enact your laws?

Who would be in charge of enforcing your laws?

Sounds like you are just transfering power from one group to another.

I say one term and back to the private sector. No more career politicians. No pension except SS just like the rest of us. No more perks, just a pay on par with the military. No more old, cold bodies sleeping in Congress, no more arrogant narcistic goons controlling our lives, while they all become millionaires.

I see both or you as right, we must take the power away from the government, take away the taxes, one tax, a sales tax to replace every fee, every tax, to replace all money collected by any form of government, it is only than that we will the burdon placed apon us.

No lobbyiest, so much we need to take back, rules and regulations are strangling the people, not the corporations.

One term as president, that president must not be able to remake our government, our foriegn policy. We need controls on how money is spent, one term for senators, one term for the congressman, maybe no life long government employees.

quotes from john adams:

John Adams Quotes

"When annual elections end, there slavery begins." - Letter to George Wythe, April, 1776

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." - Letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789


"Public affairs go on pretty much as usual: perpetual chicanery and rather more personal abuse than there used to be... Our American Chivalry is the worst in the world. It has no Laws, no bounds, no definitions; it seems to be all a Caprice." - Letter to Thomas Jefferson, April 17, 1826

 

[Immanuel]

All of us want change, this is not a partisan issue, it does not matter if you are a republican, democrat, independent, conservative or liberal. We are not going to get significant change until we the people impose term limitaions on congress and the senate.

Too many congressmen and senators have made a career out of a political office, Kennedy, Kerry, McCain, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, and the list goes on and on. They become entrenched in their white ivory towers,forgetting what it's like in the real world. They succomb to special interest groups, they become corrupt with power and money from these groups and eventually they entirely ignore their constituants. Is it any wonder to any of you why this country seems so divided. I don't beleive that we the people are divided, I believe our congress and senate are. They all form their clicks, play their power games, and in the end, get nothing done for the American people.

I think that most of us want the same thing, affordable health care, energy independence,, an educational system that works and a social security system that is feasible and won't be bankrupt for future generations. We need a government that can balance a budget, use tax payer dollars efficiently, eliminates waste and fraud, and creates opportunities for growth in the private sector. We will never get there with entrenched politicians who have made careers out of being ego centric, counter productive individuals whose only concern is power and money and getting their faces on television in order to be re-elected. Most of these politicians have never had to work a real day in their lives, they have an omnipotent veiw of themselves and really think that we the people could not live without their leadership. We can, and we would do a much better job with new people with fresh ideas. The new ones want to do what is right, they have not had the time to be corrupted by special interest groups or old entrenched politicians.

Let's give them each two terms and then there out. That's the only way we are ever going to get the change we need and want in this country. Support term limits and get to your tea party on the 15th of April. This is the real change this country needs.

Amen, Maple.

We the people already determine Term Limits with our VOTE. Find me anything in the Constitution that can limit the terms of eligable people for the House or Senate. It would take a Constitutional Amendment. Which is a waste of time and money.

I am beyond tired of lazy helpless people to STUPID to exersize their rights with the vote. Don't like a Congress or Senate Critter, VOTE them OUT. But no, we are to weak willed and helpless to actually do that, instead we want the Government to make it easy for us by forcing people out so we don't have to actually think or exersize our minds and rights.

RGS,

I don't often find myself being in such total disagreement with you, but this time I just have to say that we don't see eye to eye on this one at all.

The problem is that once a Senator or Congressman always a Senator on Congressman unless of course you are a Republican male who gets caught in bed with another male. People won't vote them out of office because "my gosh! if we vote them out of power we will lose power ourselves, we'll have a junior congressman that won't get any pork for our district for years".

Bah humbug on that one... I say get rid of the damned pork all together.

Term limits are the ONLY THING THAT WILL SAVE THIS COUNTRY. Once a Congressman or Senator, they don't give a damned about the rest of us. They are bought and sold for life and there is not a damned thing we can do about it.

Immie

 

[oreo]

Term limits alone will not do much, if anything, for US.

What we really need to do is take the power away from those with MONEY! IE: Corporations, the Wealthiest, and Lobbyist Groups.

The only way we could do it would be if We The People completely finance all Congressional and Presidential campaigns and implement laws that force equality for each candidate of a given race.

Until we take control away from special interests, regardless of who they are, they control us. End of story.

Isn't it obvious we're not going to get rid of lobbyists in Washington D.C. by now? Obama is surrounded by them--after promising he wasn't going to have them hanging around. They are through-out his administration--right there--giving advice--giving donations to politicians that will go along with them.

The only way to correct this is through TERM LIMITS. Presidents can only serve 8 years, govenors are on term limits--we don't need CAREER politicians--whose only desire is to get re-elected FOR LIFE.

If you really WANT TO CHANGE Washington D.C this is the only way to do it. TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS & THE SENATE.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How does one get a percentage of ONE? Or of 2?

Ever State has 2 Senators, how exactly do you give someone 10 percent of 2 people? A few States have ONE Representative, how do you give ANYONE any percent of one person?

A lot of States do not have 10 representatives but less, what do you do with that 10 percent then?

Bad idea all around. Look at Countries that do that, they are a mess. All of Europe for example. Nothing gets done and so they tried and may have succeeded in fleecing the voters by creating the EU which is run by people never elected at all.

 

[Just A Man]

The TEA party crowds around the nation may have been the beginning of the end for our present high taxes and the career politicians. Another instrument that is beginning to allow people's voices to be heard is the internet and forums like this one. Some politicians are already going after our guns and talk radio, could the internet be next?

 

[NOBama]

Term limits alone will not do much, if anything, for US.

What we really need to do is take the power away from those with MONEY! IE: Corporations, the Wealthiest, and Lobbyist Groups.

The only way we could do it would be if We The People completely finance all Congressional and Presidential campaigns and implement laws that force equality for each candidate of a given race.

Until we take control away from special interests, regardless of who they are, they control us. End of story.

And who would enact your laws?

Who would be in charge of enforcing your laws?

Sounds like you are just transfering power from one group to another.

I say one term and back to the private sector. No more career politicians. No pension except SS just like the rest of us. No more perks, just a pay on par with the military. No more old, cold bodies sleeping in Congress, no more arrogant narcistic goons controlling our lives, while they all become millionaires.

WHAT??? Who enacts laws now, who enforces laws now? Ever heard of the US Congress? They're the fine upstanding people we elect at district and state levels to go to Washington, DC and represent the will of the people from each state.

How would power be transferred to another group by eliminating the influence of special interests on elected officials? Who would that group be?

I'm not against term limits, but term limits alone would not solve the problem of special interests influencing politicians, it would only mean that they have to work their magic quicker. Most recognize the fact that government should not be in the business of running businesses, yet it seems we fail completely to recognize the fact business (and other special interest groups) should not be in the business of running the government.

 

[Iriemon]

Term limits alone will not do much, if anything, for US.

What we really need to do is take the power away from those with MONEY! IE: Corporations, the Wealthiest, and Lobbyist Groups.

The only way we could do it would be if We The People completely finance all Congressional and Presidential campaigns and implement laws that force equality for each candidate of a given race.

Until we take control away from special interests, regardless of who they are, they control us. End of story.

And who would enact your laws?

Same folks as now.

Who would be in charge of enforcing your laws?

Same folks as now.

Sounds like you are just transfering power from one group to another.

Only if that is the will of the voters.

I say one term and back to the private sector. No more career politicians. No pension except SS just like the rest of us. No more perks, just a pay on par with the military. No more old, cold bodies sleeping in Congress, no more arrogant narcistic goons controlling our lives, while they all become millionaires.

That penalizes effective leaders and representatives. I could agree with some term limit, but not just one term. Some continuation is beneficial. I don't agree with limited pay. We already have enough problems with overrepresentation by the rich in Govt.

 

[Iriemon]

How does one get a percentage of ONE? Or of 2?

Ever State has 2 Senators, how exactly do you give someone 10 percent of 2 people? A few States have ONE Representative, how do you give ANYONE any percent of one person?

It wouldn't be practical for the Senate, which is why I didn't propose it.

A lot of States do not have 10 representatives but less, what do you do with that 10 percent then?

You have a formula for allocating votes based on percentage of votes won. Probably round up. If one party got 9.99% and another got 10.01% they'd both be alloted one rep.

Bad idea all around. Look at Countries that do that, they are a mess. All of Europe for example. Nothing gets done and so they tried and may have succeeded in fleecing the voters by creating the EU which is run by people never elected at all.

Yes, they have representation in govt by third and minor parties. That's the point. If you are happy with Dems and Repub having a monopoly on control that is what the "winner takes all" system gives you.