Indeed the entire argument for term limits is humorous.
We've had our republic for 230+ years now and every 2 years during that time, the entire House of Reps was up for re-election as it will be again this November. If history is our guide, 8 to 9 out of 10 will be returned to their seats. Just some quick math here. If ten percent is 43.5, 20 percent (2 out of 10) is 87. The rule of thumb is that 43-87 new elected officials who were elected by we the people will be in our federal government every 2 years. And indeed there were 55 new members in 2016 and 60 in 2014. There are 536 elected offices so you get ten-twenty percent turnover every 2 years. So, keeping up with the math, we've had 115 different formulations of our federal government.
If you're of the opinion that the formulation sucks, I think it is pretty safe to say that you can't blame the actors. They change all the time as the math proves. And yes, while it seems that we see the same faces over and over again, the people who do the bidding for those same old faces of Pelosi, McCain, McConnell, etc... are different. If the fomulation sucks, it's the script that they read from; not the actors who are to blame.
Now, who writes the script? It's supposed to be the framers of the Constitution in 1787. The problem is that the script is silent on how the actors are supposed to act. So at some point, they agreed on this committee system that does the following:
We've had our republic for 230+ years now and every 2 years during that time, the entire House of Reps was up for re-election as it will be again this November. If history is our guide, 8 to 9 out of 10 will be returned to their seats. Just some quick math here. If ten percent is 43.5, 20 percent (2 out of 10) is 87. The rule of thumb is that 43-87 new elected officials who were elected by we the people will be in our federal government every 2 years. And indeed there were 55 new members in 2016 and 60 in 2014. There are 536 elected offices so you get ten-twenty percent turnover every 2 years. So, keeping up with the math, we've had 115 different formulations of our federal government.
If you're of the opinion that the formulation sucks, I think it is pretty safe to say that you can't blame the actors. They change all the time as the math proves. And yes, while it seems that we see the same faces over and over again, the people who do the bidding for those same old faces of Pelosi, McCain, McConnell, etc... are different. If the fomulation sucks, it's the script that they read from; not the actors who are to blame.
Now, who writes the script? It's supposed to be the framers of the Constitution in 1787. The problem is that the script is silent on how the actors are supposed to act. So at some point, they agreed on this committee system that does the following:
- Relegates the parties that are not in power to second class status by having a majority of every committee be dominated by the majority party in each house. So, currently, if you're a democrat or any other political party and have the best idea in the world (unlikely) it won't get a fair hearing in the committee much less by the entire body. And if the Democrats had a majority in either house, the Republicans and every other party would be relegated secondl class citizen status.
- Awards senority. The reason that you do not see freshmen senators of house members as chairs of these committtees is because it is judged (usually) by senority although the overall leadership of either body isn't strictly a senority based function. This is why you see the same people over and over on television, determining agendas, etc... It isn't because they are the best or the brightest; they have been there the longest and in keeping with traditions and party rules, they have the most clout.
- While the above are determined by customs and rules, the third and most destructive thing the committee system does is this: it stagnates the idea factory and kills innovation. The reason the Democrats are liberal and the Republicans are conservative is because the parties have evolved that way. The evolution is aided (fed, if you will) by the cash flow from special interests. The politically connected chairs of the committee on ____________ do a quick calculation in their heads on whether a bill would hurt or help their special interest and react accordingly allowing deabte or killing it. This is why lobbies usually give to both parties; so they won't feel the wrath based on the electorate. This is why LoneLaugher is 100% correct about if you get rid of the money and influence, you'll see the situation suck much less. Because if you take away the strings tied to the money, you'll see the idea factory and innovation of the 50-80 new members get some traction despite what the Pelosi's and McConnells of the world want.
