our only hope is term limits. let's start by making a list of folks runnin for office who support it

[Remodeling Maidiac]

step by step, people!

Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia supports term limits.

he's running for US Senate.

help me out, here.

let's list these folks then support their campaigns in every way we can!

DRAIN. DA. FUCKIN. SWAMP.

Let's take that concept and apply it to the private market.

A state creates a law that no company can keep an employee more than six years. It matters not what kind of work they do, how honest they are, how much profit they make for the company, they only have six years before they must resign and let somebody else take their place.

In contrast, a neighboring state keeps things the way they are now. They don't interfere with who a company keeps and who they get rid of. It's based on how good of work they do. Their merits are rewarded by their employer.

Which state do you suppose would have the most successful companies?

Term limits are not the solution. Why should we get rid of the few great representatives that may be in there now fighting for the better of the country? We actually do have term limits, and they are set by the voters. The voters determine how long a representative is allowed to serve.

Trusting voters to do the right thing is as dumb as trusting politicians.

 

[frigidweirdo]

step by step, people!

Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia supports term limits.

he's running for US Senate.

help me out, here.

let's list these folks then support their campaigns in every way we can!

DRAIN. DA. FUCKIN. SWAMP.

Agreed. This is the only way this madness starts getting fixed. Elect those who support strict Term Limits.
.

And how will it help anything? People will be even more for the gravy train. They know they have limited time, make as much money in that time as possible.

Because we could combine it with publicly-funded elections and a Balanced Budget Amendment.

That would change the motivations and behaviors of these people virtually overnight.

We can choose to change the system, or we can choose to just keep bending over and taking it.
.

Ah, so you're saying that it would only work if you implement it with other things that might work.... so why not just do the thing that you think would work?

Look at PR.

German federal election, 2017 - Wikipedia

There are 6 parties in government.

The people get to vote FPTP and PR on the same day at the same time.

8% of people chose to vote for the larger parties with FPTP and the smaller parties with PR. Why? Because FPTP is negative voting. Sometimes you don't vote for who you want to be elected, but you often vote for someone who might beat the person you DON'T want to be elected.

The people know that PR will decide the total outcome, so they know they have a freer vote.

Look at this.

CDU/CSU gained 37.2% of the votes in FPTP but 77% of the seat.
The FDP gained 7% of the votes in FPTP but 0% of the seats.

So, under a US system 37% of people would decide everything for everyone, while the 7% of people who voted for the FDP would get no representation simply because they couldn't get enough support in one small area, but COULD get 7% of the vote nationwide.

Is that fair?

But under PR the CDU/CSU got 33% of the vote, a loss of 4% and gained 246 seats out of 709, much, much closer to the number of votes they got.

In the US people don't bother voting for third parties because they KNOW they can't win in the local area, so they vote for who they DON'T want to get in.

The main parties should be getting less than 66% of the vote, but in the US they get 95% of the vote.

It leads to two parties, no oversight, partisan politics and complete nonsense day in, day out.

Frigid,

The German system is a Party List, I wouldn't be the biggest fan but better than the US system...
Electoral system of Germany - Wikipedia

I would probably be plucking for the Irish System...

Here is an example of election for EU Parliament...

Dublin (European Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia

View attachment 162161

First the Quota is calculated on the bottom by this formula - (No. of votes/(No. of Seats +1) +1...
If you reach quota your excess is shared out... then they start eliminating one by one from the bottom (sometimes more than one when candidates have such low votes they can't change the order)..

This is a three seat constituency (in Ireland it is either 3,4 or 5 seat constituencies). Nessa was in 5th place after the first count but as others get eliminated she climbed up.. Eamon was the biggest looser in transfers when Nessa got big transfer from Paul Murphy, that was a geographical transfer rather than idealogical.

ElectionsIreland.org: 2014 Euro - Dublin Count Details
View attachment 162164

I hope this explains it better?

No, the German system has two systems. 299 seats are allocated by FPTP.

The problem with the Irish system is that people still end up not being represented by the people they want to represent them.

In the US it would lead to the Republicans and Democrats just winning all the time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

the ONLY way to set term limits for US congress is an amendment to the constitution

I don't think so. I don't believe the US Constitution prohibits term limits. However I think we need to amend it so that representatives are voted on at the same time.

The real problem is that even good people who get elected are poisoned by the swamp once they get comfortable, then they become part of it. If we elected all 100 Senators in one election, same with Congress, we would have the ability to vote them all (or most of them) out so there would be little contamination of the new representatives.

just like the president congress is set by the constitution, the presidential term and how often he can serve is set by the constitution and so is congress. you want to limit that? you need an amendment.

I disagree. The Constitution limits what we can do, not permit what we can do. The presidential term is limited by the Constitution, that's why a President can't run more than two times. There is no limitation on Congress, so it could be decided by our legislatures to have such limits. As long as a law doesn't violate the Constitution, such law can be enacted.

wrong as usual the constitution sets forth the requirements to be elected for president and congress the only way to change that is to amend the constitution as was done for president.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

the ONLY way to set term limits for US congress is an amendment to the constitution

I don't think so. I don't believe the US Constitution prohibits term limits. However I think we need to amend it so that representatives are voted on at the same time.

The real problem is that even good people who get elected are poisoned by the swamp once they get comfortable, then they become part of it. If we elected all 100 Senators in one election, same with Congress, we would have the ability to vote them all (or most of them) out so there would be little contamination of the new representatives.

just like the president congress is set by the constitution, the presidential term and how often he can serve is set by the constitution and so is congress. you want to limit that? you need an amendment.

I disagree. The Constitution limits what we can do, not permit what we can do. The presidential term is limited by the Constitution, that's why a President can't run more than two times. There is no limitation on Congress, so it could be decided by our legislatures to have such limits. As long as a law doesn't violate the Constitution, such law can be enacted.

wrong as usual the constitution sets forth the requirements to be elected for president and congress the only way to change that is to amend the constitution as was done for president.

Correct. It does set requirements on how TO get elected for various government positions, but only the President is restricted to two terms. There are no restrictions in limiting Congressional or Senate terms. That can be decided by law.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

the ONLY way to set term limits for US congress is an amendment to the constitution

I don't think so. I don't believe the US Constitution prohibits term limits. However I think we need to amend it so that representatives are voted on at the same time.

The real problem is that even good people who get elected are poisoned by the swamp once they get comfortable, then they become part of it. If we elected all 100 Senators in one election, same with Congress, we would have the ability to vote them all (or most of them) out so there would be little contamination of the new representatives.

just like the president congress is set by the constitution, the presidential term and how often he can serve is set by the constitution and so is congress. you want to limit that? you need an amendment.

I disagree. The Constitution limits what we can do, not permit what we can do. The presidential term is limited by the Constitution, that's why a President can't run more than two times. There is no limitation on Congress, so it could be decided by our legislatures to have such limits. As long as a law doesn't violate the Constitution, such law can be enacted.

wrong as usual the constitution sets forth the requirements to be elected for president and congress the only way to change that is to amend the constitution as was done for president.

Correct. It does set requirements on how TO get elected for various government positions, but only the President is restricted to two terms. There are no restrictions in limiting Congressional or Senate terms. That can be decided by law.

no they can not for the same reason it took an amendment on the president. The Constitution does not limit the terms for congress and establishes what it takes to be elected, a law can not modify the listed criteria.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't think so. I don't believe the US Constitution prohibits term limits. However I think we need to amend it so that representatives are voted on at the same time.

The real problem is that even good people who get elected are poisoned by the swamp once they get comfortable, then they become part of it. If we elected all 100 Senators in one election, same with Congress, we would have the ability to vote them all (or most of them) out so there would be little contamination of the new representatives.

just like the president congress is set by the constitution, the presidential term and how often he can serve is set by the constitution and so is congress. you want to limit that? you need an amendment.

I disagree. The Constitution limits what we can do, not permit what we can do. The presidential term is limited by the Constitution, that's why a President can't run more than two times. There is no limitation on Congress, so it could be decided by our legislatures to have such limits. As long as a law doesn't violate the Constitution, such law can be enacted.

wrong as usual the constitution sets forth the requirements to be elected for president and congress the only way to change that is to amend the constitution as was done for president.

Correct. It does set requirements on how TO get elected for various government positions, but only the President is restricted to two terms. There are no restrictions in limiting Congressional or Senate terms. That can be decided by law.

no they can not for the same reason it took an amendment on the president. The Constitution does not limit the terms for congress and establishes what it takes to be elected, a law can not modify the listed criteria.

Absolutely correct. A law cannot override what it takes to get elected to Congress or Senate. However the Constitution does not guarantee unlimited terms. If it did guarantee the right to serve unlimited terms, then it would take an amendment to change that.

In other words, let's say Congress created term limits and it was constitutionally challenged. What would that challenge be? What would be the constitutional violation when there is nothing written about term limits?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

just like the president congress is set by the constitution, the presidential term and how often he can serve is set by the constitution and so is congress. you want to limit that? you need an amendment.

I disagree. The Constitution limits what we can do, not permit what we can do. The presidential term is limited by the Constitution, that's why a President can't run more than two times. There is no limitation on Congress, so it could be decided by our legislatures to have such limits. As long as a law doesn't violate the Constitution, such law can be enacted.

wrong as usual the constitution sets forth the requirements to be elected for president and congress the only way to change that is to amend the constitution as was done for president.

Correct. It does set requirements on how TO get elected for various government positions, but only the President is restricted to two terms. There are no restrictions in limiting Congressional or Senate terms. That can be decided by law.

no they can not for the same reason it took an amendment on the president. The Constitution does not limit the terms for congress and establishes what it takes to be elected, a law can not modify the listed criteria.

Absolutely correct. A law cannot override what it takes to get elected to Congress or Senate. However the Constitution does not guarantee unlimited terms. If it did guarantee the right to serve unlimited terms, then it would take an amendment to change that.

In other words, let's say Congress created term limits and it was constitutionally challenged. What would that challenge be? What would be the constitutional violation when there is nothing written about term limits?

the same one with the president and why they created an amendment, so long as a candidate meets the requirements set forth by the constitution they can NOT be barred.

 

[CowboyTed]

Agreed. This is the only way this madness starts getting fixed. Elect those who support strict Term Limits.
.

And how will it help anything? People will be even more for the gravy train. They know they have limited time, make as much money in that time as possible.

Because we could combine it with publicly-funded elections and a Balanced Budget Amendment.

That would change the motivations and behaviors of these people virtually overnight.

We can choose to change the system, or we can choose to just keep bending over and taking it.
.

Ah, so you're saying that it would only work if you implement it with other things that might work.... so why not just do the thing that you think would work?

Look at PR.

German federal election, 2017 - Wikipedia

There are 6 parties in government.

The people get to vote FPTP and PR on the same day at the same time.

8% of people chose to vote for the larger parties with FPTP and the smaller parties with PR. Why? Because FPTP is negative voting. Sometimes you don't vote for who you want to be elected, but you often vote for someone who might beat the person you DON'T want to be elected.

The people know that PR will decide the total outcome, so they know they have a freer vote.

Look at this.

CDU/CSU gained 37.2% of the votes in FPTP but 77% of the seat.
The FDP gained 7% of the votes in FPTP but 0% of the seats.

So, under a US system 37% of people would decide everything for everyone, while the 7% of people who voted for the FDP would get no representation simply because they couldn't get enough support in one small area, but COULD get 7% of the vote nationwide.

Is that fair?

But under PR the CDU/CSU got 33% of the vote, a loss of 4% and gained 246 seats out of 709, much, much closer to the number of votes they got.

In the US people don't bother voting for third parties because they KNOW they can't win in the local area, so they vote for who they DON'T want to get in.

The main parties should be getting less than 66% of the vote, but in the US they get 95% of the vote.

It leads to two parties, no oversight, partisan politics and complete nonsense day in, day out.

Frigid,

The German system is a Party List, I wouldn't be the biggest fan but better than the US system...
Electoral system of Germany - Wikipedia

I would probably be plucking for the Irish System...

Here is an example of election for EU Parliament...

Dublin (European Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia

View attachment 162161

First the Quota is calculated on the bottom by this formula - (No. of votes/(No. of Seats +1) +1...
If you reach quota your excess is shared out... then they start eliminating one by one from the bottom (sometimes more than one when candidates have such low votes they can't change the order)..

This is a three seat constituency (in Ireland it is either 3,4 or 5 seat constituencies). Nessa was in 5th place after the first count but as others get eliminated she climbed up.. Eamon was the biggest looser in transfers when Nessa got big transfer from Paul Murphy, that was a geographical transfer rather than idealogical.

ElectionsIreland.org: 2014 Euro - Dublin Count Details
View attachment 162164

I hope this explains it better?

No, the German system has two systems. 299 seats are allocated by FPTP.

The problem with the Irish system is that people still end up not being represented by the people they want to represent them.

In the US it would lead to the Republicans and Democrats just winning all the time.

Frigid,

It does the exact opposite... When people vote in Ireland they vote 1,2,3,... down the card...

So if your buddy is running for raving lunatic party and you can vote for him No1. But if he is eliminated your vote is passed to the next viable (uneliminated) candidate... Instead of voting against someone you are giving preference for someone...

The other thing is choice... There was 9 parties competing for three seats... Fianna Fail are the second largest party in the country and they didn't even get a seat... All those parties stand for different things... They have clear messages and aren't just a big camp...

The voter got a choice from Moderate right, Moderate Left, Pro Environmental Left, a few hard left parties, independent... Note there is no hard right really in Ireland, no support for them to be honest...

But you can vote for who you like and you are not spoiling your vote..

 

[bripat9643]

the ONLY way to set term limits for US congress is an amendment to the constitution

I don't think so. I don't believe the US Constitution prohibits term limits. However I think we need to amend it so that representatives are voted on at the same time.

The real problem is that even good people who get elected are poisoned by the swamp once they get comfortable, then they become part of it. If we elected all 100 Senators in one election, same with Congress, we would have the ability to vote them all (or most of them) out so there would be little contamination of the new representatives.

just like the president congress is set by the constitution, the presidential term and how often he can serve is set by the constitution and so is congress. you want to limit that? you need an amendment.

I disagree. The Constitution limits what we can do, not permit what we can do. The presidential term is limited by the Constitution, that's why a President can't run more than two times. There is no limitation on Congress, so it could be decided by our legislatures to have such limits. As long as a law doesn't violate the Constitution, such law can be enacted.

wrong as usual the constitution sets forth the requirements to be elected for president and congress the only way to change that is to amend the constitution as was done for president.

Correct. It does set requirements on how TO get elected for various government positions, but only the President is restricted to two terms. There are no restrictions in limiting Congressional or Senate terms. That can be decided by law.

The SC already ruled (wrongly) against that idea.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And how will it help anything? People will be even more for the gravy train. They know they have limited time, make as much money in that time as possible.

Because we could combine it with publicly-funded elections and a Balanced Budget Amendment.

That would change the motivations and behaviors of these people virtually overnight.

We can choose to change the system, or we can choose to just keep bending over and taking it.
.

Ah, so you're saying that it would only work if you implement it with other things that might work.... so why not just do the thing that you think would work?

Look at PR.

German federal election, 2017 - Wikipedia

There are 6 parties in government.

The people get to vote FPTP and PR on the same day at the same time.

8% of people chose to vote for the larger parties with FPTP and the smaller parties with PR. Why? Because FPTP is negative voting. Sometimes you don't vote for who you want to be elected, but you often vote for someone who might beat the person you DON'T want to be elected.

The people know that PR will decide the total outcome, so they know they have a freer vote.

Look at this.

CDU/CSU gained 37.2% of the votes in FPTP but 77% of the seat.
The FDP gained 7% of the votes in FPTP but 0% of the seats.

So, under a US system 37% of people would decide everything for everyone, while the 7% of people who voted for the FDP would get no representation simply because they couldn't get enough support in one small area, but COULD get 7% of the vote nationwide.

Is that fair?

But under PR the CDU/CSU got 33% of the vote, a loss of 4% and gained 246 seats out of 709, much, much closer to the number of votes they got.

In the US people don't bother voting for third parties because they KNOW they can't win in the local area, so they vote for who they DON'T want to get in.

The main parties should be getting less than 66% of the vote, but in the US they get 95% of the vote.

It leads to two parties, no oversight, partisan politics and complete nonsense day in, day out.

Frigid,

The German system is a Party List, I wouldn't be the biggest fan but better than the US system...
Electoral system of Germany - Wikipedia

I would probably be plucking for the Irish System...

Here is an example of election for EU Parliament...

Dublin (European Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia

View attachment 162161

First the Quota is calculated on the bottom by this formula - (No. of votes/(No. of Seats +1) +1...
If you reach quota your excess is shared out... then they start eliminating one by one from the bottom (sometimes more than one when candidates have such low votes they can't change the order)..

This is a three seat constituency (in Ireland it is either 3,4 or 5 seat constituencies). Nessa was in 5th place after the first count but as others get eliminated she climbed up.. Eamon was the biggest looser in transfers when Nessa got big transfer from Paul Murphy, that was a geographical transfer rather than idealogical.

ElectionsIreland.org: 2014 Euro - Dublin Count Details
View attachment 162164

I hope this explains it better?

No, the German system has two systems. 299 seats are allocated by FPTP.

The problem with the Irish system is that people still end up not being represented by the people they want to represent them.

In the US it would lead to the Republicans and Democrats just winning all the time.

Frigid,

It does the exact opposite... When people vote in Ireland they vote 1,2,3,... down the card...

So if your buddy is running for raving lunatic party and you can vote for him No1. But if he is eliminated your vote is passed to the next viable (uneliminated) candidate... Instead of voting against someone you are giving preference for someone...

The other thing is choice... There was 9 parties competing for three seats... Fianna Fail are the second largest party in the country and they didn't even get a seat... All those parties stand for different things... They have clear messages and aren't just a big camp...

The voter got a choice from Moderate right, Moderate Left, Pro Environmental Left, a few hard left parties, independent... Note there is no hard right really in Ireland, no support for them to be honest...

But you can vote for who you like and you are not spoiling your vote..

I understand.

However let's put it this way.

In the German election the FDP got 7% and won 0% of the seats with FPTP. It means 7% of the people didn't have someone to represent them.

Would this have changed with AV? No, not at all.

2017 German Election Results

The FPD is stronger in three regions.

2017 German Election Results

In the north their best showing was 11%, they wouldn't have won that because the SPD and CDU both had much higher results. In the west they got 10.5% in one constituency.

Had the election been AV the FDP would have gained zero seats.

All that would have happened is that the FDP voters would have put CDU or SPD down as their second or third choice and these parties would then have gained "more votes".

In terms of the US, what would change? The Reps and Dems already take home 95% of the votes. In almost no instances would the vote chance, because there are no third parties to make it viable.

People might vote for someone else first vote, but even with PR I predict the Reps and Dems would take home around 66% of the vote. And in most cases with AV, they'd still be taking home 95% of the vote.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

the ONLY way to set term limits for US congress is an amendment to the constitution

I don't think so. I don't believe the US Constitution prohibits term limits. However I think we need to amend it so that representatives are voted on at the same time.

The real problem is that even good people who get elected are poisoned by the swamp once they get comfortable, then they become part of it. If we elected all 100 Senators in one election, same with Congress, we would have the ability to vote them all (or most of them) out so there would be little contamination of the new representatives.

Representatives ARE voted on at the same time.

Senators are split among 3 classes so there at least will be some stability.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

the ONLY way to set term limits for US congress is an amendment to the constitution

I don't think so. I don't believe the US Constitution prohibits term limits. However I think we need to amend it so that representatives are voted on at the same time.

The real problem is that even good people who get elected are poisoned by the swamp once they get comfortable, then they become part of it. If we elected all 100 Senators in one election, same with Congress, we would have the ability to vote them all (or most of them) out so there would be little contamination of the new representatives.

just like the president congress is set by the constitution, the presidential term and how often he can serve is set by the constitution and so is congress. you want to limit that? you need an amendment.

I disagree. The Constitution limits what we can do, not permit what we can do. The presidential term is limited by the Constitution, that's why a President can't run more than two times. There is no limitation on Congress, so it could be decided by our legislatures to have such limits. As long as a law doesn't violate the Constitution, such law can be enacted.

wrong as usual the constitution sets forth the requirements to be elected for president and congress the only way to change that is to amend the constitution as was done for president.

Correct. It does set requirements on how TO get elected for various government positions, but only the President is restricted to two terms. There are no restrictions in limiting Congressional or Senate terms. That can be decided by law.

No, it must be an amendment. That was decided a long time ago.

Why are you doing a bi-polar impression on this topic? First you say one thing and then you say another.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't think so. I don't believe the US Constitution prohibits term limits. However I think we need to amend it so that representatives are voted on at the same time.

The real problem is that even good people who get elected are poisoned by the swamp once they get comfortable, then they become part of it. If we elected all 100 Senators in one election, same with Congress, we would have the ability to vote them all (or most of them) out so there would be little contamination of the new representatives.

just like the president congress is set by the constitution, the presidential term and how often he can serve is set by the constitution and so is congress. you want to limit that? you need an amendment.

I disagree. The Constitution limits what we can do, not permit what we can do. The presidential term is limited by the Constitution, that's why a President can't run more than two times. There is no limitation on Congress, so it could be decided by our legislatures to have such limits. As long as a law doesn't violate the Constitution, such law can be enacted.

wrong as usual the constitution sets forth the requirements to be elected for president and congress the only way to change that is to amend the constitution as was done for president.

Correct. It does set requirements on how TO get elected for various government positions, but only the President is restricted to two terms. There are no restrictions in limiting Congressional or Senate terms. That can be decided by law.

No, it must be an amendment. That was decided a long time ago.

Why are you doing a bi-polar impression on this topic? First you say one thing and then you say another.

No, I said one thing. If Congress sets term limits and somebody wants to challenge that, they need to point to how it violates the Constitution. Given that the Constitution doesn't guarantee unlimited reelections, there is nothing to challenge.

 

[rightwinger]

Term limits are for losers who can't get elected otherwise

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

just like the president congress is set by the constitution, the presidential term and how often he can serve is set by the constitution and so is congress. you want to limit that? you need an amendment.

I disagree. The Constitution limits what we can do, not permit what we can do. The presidential term is limited by the Constitution, that's why a President can't run more than two times. There is no limitation on Congress, so it could be decided by our legislatures to have such limits. As long as a law doesn't violate the Constitution, such law can be enacted.

wrong as usual the constitution sets forth the requirements to be elected for president and congress the only way to change that is to amend the constitution as was done for president.

Correct. It does set requirements on how TO get elected for various government positions, but only the President is restricted to two terms. There are no restrictions in limiting Congressional or Senate terms. That can be decided by law.

No, it must be an amendment. That was decided a long time ago.

Why are you doing a bi-polar impression on this topic? First you say one thing and then you say another.

No, I said one thing. If Congress sets term limits and somebody wants to challenge that, they need to point to how it violates the Constitution. Given that the Constitution doesn't guarantee unlimited reelections, there is nothing to challenge.

The Constitution sets forth the qualifications to be elected to Congress. Passing a law would restrict that further, and that is simply unConstitutional.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

just like the president congress is set by the constitution, the presidential term and how often he can serve is set by the constitution and so is congress. you want to limit that? you need an amendment.

I disagree. The Constitution limits what we can do, not permit what we can do. The presidential term is limited by the Constitution, that's why a President can't run more than two times. There is no limitation on Congress, so it could be decided by our legislatures to have such limits. As long as a law doesn't violate the Constitution, such law can be enacted.

wrong as usual the constitution sets forth the requirements to be elected for president and congress the only way to change that is to amend the constitution as was done for president.

Correct. It does set requirements on how TO get elected for various government positions, but only the President is restricted to two terms. There are no restrictions in limiting Congressional or Senate terms. That can be decided by law.

No, it must be an amendment. That was decided a long time ago.

Why are you doing a bi-polar impression on this topic? First you say one thing and then you say another.

No, I said one thing. If Congress sets term limits and somebody wants to challenge that, they need to point to how it violates the Constitution. Given that the Constitution doesn't guarantee unlimited reelections, there is nothing to challenge.

onca again for the slow the constitution establishes the criteria, no mention of term limits so long as a person meets the criteria they get to run. the ONLY way one can term limit congress is to list it in the criteria IN the constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

I disagree. The Constitution limits what we can do, not permit what we can do. The presidential term is limited by the Constitution, that's why a President can't run more than two times. There is no limitation on Congress, so it could be decided by our legislatures to have such limits. As long as a law doesn't violate the Constitution, such law can be enacted.

wrong as usual the constitution sets forth the requirements to be elected for president and congress the only way to change that is to amend the constitution as was done for president.

Correct. It does set requirements on how TO get elected for various government positions, but only the President is restricted to two terms. There are no restrictions in limiting Congressional or Senate terms. That can be decided by law.

No, it must be an amendment. That was decided a long time ago.

Why are you doing a bi-polar impression on this topic? First you say one thing and then you say another.

No, I said one thing. If Congress sets term limits and somebody wants to challenge that, they need to point to how it violates the Constitution. Given that the Constitution doesn't guarantee unlimited reelections, there is nothing to challenge.

onca again for the slow the constitution establishes the criteria, no mention of term limits so long as a person meets the criteria they get to run. the ONLY way one can term limit congress is to list it in the criteria IN the constitution.

Never happen

We won't see a new amendment in our lifetime
Congress is broken

 

[CowboyTed]

Because we could combine it with publicly-funded elections and a Balanced Budget Amendment.

That would change the motivations and behaviors of these people virtually overnight.

We can choose to change the system, or we can choose to just keep bending over and taking it.
.

Ah, so you're saying that it would only work if you implement it with other things that might work.... so why not just do the thing that you think would work?

Look at PR.

German federal election, 2017 - Wikipedia

There are 6 parties in government.

The people get to vote FPTP and PR on the same day at the same time.

8% of people chose to vote for the larger parties with FPTP and the smaller parties with PR. Why? Because FPTP is negative voting. Sometimes you don't vote for who you want to be elected, but you often vote for someone who might beat the person you DON'T want to be elected.

The people know that PR will decide the total outcome, so they know they have a freer vote.

Look at this.

CDU/CSU gained 37.2% of the votes in FPTP but 77% of the seat.
The FDP gained 7% of the votes in FPTP but 0% of the seats.

So, under a US system 37% of people would decide everything for everyone, while the 7% of people who voted for the FDP would get no representation simply because they couldn't get enough support in one small area, but COULD get 7% of the vote nationwide.

Is that fair?

But under PR the CDU/CSU got 33% of the vote, a loss of 4% and gained 246 seats out of 709, much, much closer to the number of votes they got.

In the US people don't bother voting for third parties because they KNOW they can't win in the local area, so they vote for who they DON'T want to get in.

The main parties should be getting less than 66% of the vote, but in the US they get 95% of the vote.

It leads to two parties, no oversight, partisan politics and complete nonsense day in, day out.

Frigid,

The German system is a Party List, I wouldn't be the biggest fan but better than the US system...
Electoral system of Germany - Wikipedia

I would probably be plucking for the Irish System...

Here is an example of election for EU Parliament...

Dublin (European Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia

View attachment 162161

First the Quota is calculated on the bottom by this formula - (No. of votes/(No. of Seats +1) +1...
If you reach quota your excess is shared out... then they start eliminating one by one from the bottom (sometimes more than one when candidates have such low votes they can't change the order)..

This is a three seat constituency (in Ireland it is either 3,4 or 5 seat constituencies). Nessa was in 5th place after the first count but as others get eliminated she climbed up.. Eamon was the biggest looser in transfers when Nessa got big transfer from Paul Murphy, that was a geographical transfer rather than idealogical.

ElectionsIreland.org: 2014 Euro - Dublin Count Details
View attachment 162164

I hope this explains it better?

No, the German system has two systems. 299 seats are allocated by FPTP.

The problem with the Irish system is that people still end up not being represented by the people they want to represent them.

In the US it would lead to the Republicans and Democrats just winning all the time.

Frigid,

It does the exact opposite... When people vote in Ireland they vote 1,2,3,... down the card...

So if your buddy is running for raving lunatic party and you can vote for him No1. But if he is eliminated your vote is passed to the next viable (uneliminated) candidate... Instead of voting against someone you are giving preference for someone...

The other thing is choice... There was 9 parties competing for three seats... Fianna Fail are the second largest party in the country and they didn't even get a seat... All those parties stand for different things... They have clear messages and aren't just a big camp...

The voter got a choice from Moderate right, Moderate Left, Pro Environmental Left, a few hard left parties, independent... Note there is no hard right really in Ireland, no support for them to be honest...

But you can vote for who you like and you are not spoiling your vote..

I understand.

However let's put it this way.

In the German election the FDP got 7% and won 0% of the seats with FPTP. It means 7% of the people didn't have someone to represent them.

Would this have changed with AV? No, not at all.

2017 German Election Results

The FPD is stronger in three regions.

2017 German Election Results

In the north their best showing was 11%, they wouldn't have won that because the SPD and CDU both had much higher results. In the west they got 10.5% in one constituency.

Had the election been AV the FDP would have gained zero seats.

All that would have happened is that the FDP voters would have put CDU or SPD down as their second or third choice and these parties would then have gained "more votes".

In terms of the US, what would change? The Reps and Dems already take home 95% of the votes. In almost no instances would the vote chance, because there are no third parties to make it viable.

People might vote for someone else first vote, but even with PR I predict the Reps and Dems would take home around 66% of the vote. And in most cases with AV, they'd still be taking home 95% of the vote.

Thats why I agree with having Proportional Representation as well as Single Vote Transfer (AV)...

Look at the results of the Irish example... 4 different parties and the 2nd biggest failed... If that was the US system it would be GOP and Dems fighting for a 2-1 win... No other party need apply...

What you are asking for, I think the Irish system give you most...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ah, so you're saying that it would only work if you implement it with other things that might work.... so why not just do the thing that you think would work?

Look at PR.

German federal election, 2017 - Wikipedia

There are 6 parties in government.

The people get to vote FPTP and PR on the same day at the same time.

8% of people chose to vote for the larger parties with FPTP and the smaller parties with PR. Why? Because FPTP is negative voting. Sometimes you don't vote for who you want to be elected, but you often vote for someone who might beat the person you DON'T want to be elected.

The people know that PR will decide the total outcome, so they know they have a freer vote.

Look at this.

CDU/CSU gained 37.2% of the votes in FPTP but 77% of the seat.
The FDP gained 7% of the votes in FPTP but 0% of the seats.

So, under a US system 37% of people would decide everything for everyone, while the 7% of people who voted for the FDP would get no representation simply because they couldn't get enough support in one small area, but COULD get 7% of the vote nationwide.

Is that fair?

But under PR the CDU/CSU got 33% of the vote, a loss of 4% and gained 246 seats out of 709, much, much closer to the number of votes they got.

In the US people don't bother voting for third parties because they KNOW they can't win in the local area, so they vote for who they DON'T want to get in.

The main parties should be getting less than 66% of the vote, but in the US they get 95% of the vote.

It leads to two parties, no oversight, partisan politics and complete nonsense day in, day out.

Frigid,

The German system is a Party List, I wouldn't be the biggest fan but better than the US system...
Electoral system of Germany - Wikipedia

I would probably be plucking for the Irish System...

Here is an example of election for EU Parliament...

Dublin (European Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia

View attachment 162161

First the Quota is calculated on the bottom by this formula - (No. of votes/(No. of Seats +1) +1...
If you reach quota your excess is shared out... then they start eliminating one by one from the bottom (sometimes more than one when candidates have such low votes they can't change the order)..

This is a three seat constituency (in Ireland it is either 3,4 or 5 seat constituencies). Nessa was in 5th place after the first count but as others get eliminated she climbed up.. Eamon was the biggest looser in transfers when Nessa got big transfer from Paul Murphy, that was a geographical transfer rather than idealogical.

ElectionsIreland.org: 2014 Euro - Dublin Count Details
View attachment 162164

I hope this explains it better?

No, the German system has two systems. 299 seats are allocated by FPTP.

The problem with the Irish system is that people still end up not being represented by the people they want to represent them.

In the US it would lead to the Republicans and Democrats just winning all the time.

Frigid,

It does the exact opposite... When people vote in Ireland they vote 1,2,3,... down the card...

So if your buddy is running for raving lunatic party and you can vote for him No1. But if he is eliminated your vote is passed to the next viable (uneliminated) candidate... Instead of voting against someone you are giving preference for someone...

The other thing is choice... There was 9 parties competing for three seats... Fianna Fail are the second largest party in the country and they didn't even get a seat... All those parties stand for different things... They have clear messages and aren't just a big camp...

The voter got a choice from Moderate right, Moderate Left, Pro Environmental Left, a few hard left parties, independent... Note there is no hard right really in Ireland, no support for them to be honest...

But you can vote for who you like and you are not spoiling your vote..

I understand.

However let's put it this way.

In the German election the FDP got 7% and won 0% of the seats with FPTP. It means 7% of the people didn't have someone to represent them.

Would this have changed with AV? No, not at all.

2017 German Election Results

The FPD is stronger in three regions.

2017 German Election Results

In the north their best showing was 11%, they wouldn't have won that because the SPD and CDU both had much higher results. In the west they got 10.5% in one constituency.

Had the election been AV the FDP would have gained zero seats.

All that would have happened is that the FDP voters would have put CDU or SPD down as their second or third choice and these parties would then have gained "more votes".

In terms of the US, what would change? The Reps and Dems already take home 95% of the votes. In almost no instances would the vote chance, because there are no third parties to make it viable.

People might vote for someone else first vote, but even with PR I predict the Reps and Dems would take home around 66% of the vote. And in most cases with AV, they'd still be taking home 95% of the vote.

Thats why I agree with having Proportional Representation as well as Single Vote Transfer (AV)...

Look at the results of the Irish example... 4 different parties and the 2nd biggest failed... If that was the US system it would be GOP and Dems fighting for a 2-1 win... No other party need apply...

What you are asking for, I think the Irish system give you most...

The German system has FPTP and PR at the same time. It's a system which I have advocated for a long time.

 

[CowboyTed]

Frigid,

The German system is a Party List, I wouldn't be the biggest fan but better than the US system...
Electoral system of Germany - Wikipedia

I would probably be plucking for the Irish System...

Here is an example of election for EU Parliament...

Dublin (European Parliament constituency) - Wikipedia

View attachment 162161

First the Quota is calculated on the bottom by this formula - (No. of votes/(No. of Seats +1) +1...
If you reach quota your excess is shared out... then they start eliminating one by one from the bottom (sometimes more than one when candidates have such low votes they can't change the order)..

This is a three seat constituency (in Ireland it is either 3,4 or 5 seat constituencies). Nessa was in 5th place after the first count but as others get eliminated she climbed up.. Eamon was the biggest looser in transfers when Nessa got big transfer from Paul Murphy, that was a geographical transfer rather than idealogical.

ElectionsIreland.org: 2014 Euro - Dublin Count Details
View attachment 162164

I hope this explains it better?

No, the German system has two systems. 299 seats are allocated by FPTP.

The problem with the Irish system is that people still end up not being represented by the people they want to represent them.

In the US it would lead to the Republicans and Democrats just winning all the time.

Frigid,

It does the exact opposite... When people vote in Ireland they vote 1,2,3,... down the card...

So if your buddy is running for raving lunatic party and you can vote for him No1. But if he is eliminated your vote is passed to the next viable (uneliminated) candidate... Instead of voting against someone you are giving preference for someone...

The other thing is choice... There was 9 parties competing for three seats... Fianna Fail are the second largest party in the country and they didn't even get a seat... All those parties stand for different things... They have clear messages and aren't just a big camp...

The voter got a choice from Moderate right, Moderate Left, Pro Environmental Left, a few hard left parties, independent... Note there is no hard right really in Ireland, no support for them to be honest...

But you can vote for who you like and you are not spoiling your vote..

I understand.

However let's put it this way.

In the German election the FDP got 7% and won 0% of the seats with FPTP. It means 7% of the people didn't have someone to represent them.

Would this have changed with AV? No, not at all.

2017 German Election Results

The FPD is stronger in three regions.

2017 German Election Results

In the north their best showing was 11%, they wouldn't have won that because the SPD and CDU both had much higher results. In the west they got 10.5% in one constituency.

Had the election been AV the FDP would have gained zero seats.

All that would have happened is that the FDP voters would have put CDU or SPD down as their second or third choice and these parties would then have gained "more votes".

In terms of the US, what would change? The Reps and Dems already take home 95% of the votes. In almost no instances would the vote chance, because there are no third parties to make it viable.

People might vote for someone else first vote, but even with PR I predict the Reps and Dems would take home around 66% of the vote. And in most cases with AV, they'd still be taking home 95% of the vote.

Thats why I agree with having Proportional Representation as well as Single Vote Transfer (AV)...

Look at the results of the Irish example... 4 different parties and the 2nd biggest failed... If that was the US system it would be GOP and Dems fighting for a 2-1 win... No other party need apply...

What you are asking for, I think the Irish system give you most...

The German system has FPTP and PR at the same time. It's a system which I have advocated for a long time.

FPTP is where the problem lies... STV (Single Vote Transfer/Alternative Vote) with PR gives the best choice...

FPTP just allows you to vote for one person/party... Germany just allows you to do that twice, once for a candidate and second for the party list...

AV allows your preference to be taken into account...

Proportion Representation is the difference between single seat and multi seat constituencies... I am a big fan of PR...

But STV allows voters to vote who they want without losing their vote... So voting for smaller parties or independents who have less of a chance of winning is not penalised...
For Example:
So instead of say the last election where a huge chunk of voters where just voting against candidates, you could actually voted for Stein and then for say Clinton... If Stein gets eliminated your vote gets transferred to Clinton so your vote doesn't help Trump...
This means candidates like Bernie would stay in the race with probably a voting pact with Clinton asking his supporters to give there next next preference votes to Clinton, Clinton would do visa versa... It is the voters free choice but a lot listen to their first choice...