Term Limits the only solution for real change

[Midnight Marauder]

It's almost funny the way that some Rs just assume that if there were term limits, Repubs would win the majority back.

I for one haven't seen anyone assuming that or asserting that. Perhaps you can prop up that strawman a little, with some actual examples.

When will you all accept the rejection of Republican policies in 2006 and 2008 by the American voters?

One of the first steps in recovery is acceptance.

The same way Dems accepted the rejection by the voters of their policies in 1994? And accepted their further losses throughout the 90s and then twice for the White House? Pot, meet kettle!

What we have now which you and other non-thinking blind partisans seem to be OK with, is one-party rule. Doesn't matter what party it is, one-party rule is the LAST thing anyone should want. Our system should always be adversarial, not kum-by-ya.

You voted for "change" and so far there's very little of it. Mostly we're seeing the continuation and magnification of the SAME policies the voters rejected! This should disturb you greatly though you shouldn't be surprised -- most of the things from the previous administration you object to, Dems supported with their Congressional votes! And the only change is, more of the same!

When will your known keen intellect kick in and eschew blind partisanship? When it does, so will buyer's remorse.

 

[Truthmatters]

Term limits limits the choice of the American people.

Fuck that.

Lets just fix how elecions are funded intstead.

Free airtime for all candidates and NO buying airtime.

 

[Just A Man]

Folks, we've been brainwashed on keeping a politician in office who promises "his people" he'll deliver. What's best for the old US of A? We the people should demand a one term limit for every elective office. That's US, state, county and city. The job should pay the same as an equal position in the military, no perks and no pension. You want a staff, pay for it on your own. Then when your term is up get back to the private sector and get a job like the rest of us, live under your laws and pay the same taxes you impose. It'll work but we the people must demand the change.

 

[American Horse]

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......

.....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.

There are Constitutional Issues of:
State's rights
Freedom of speach
Freedom of association
Equal representation

 

[Truthmatters]

Its not that people stay in office its that we allow them to be bought by the monied interests.

Its crazy you people think that paying shitty and making them not stay long will change any of that.

Stop the assholes from BUYING favors is what we need to do NOT limit the choice of voters.

 

[Sarah G]

It's almost funny the way that some Rs just assume that if there were term limits, Repubs would win the majority back.

I for one haven't seen anyone assuming that or asserting that. Perhaps you can prop up that strawman a little, with some actual examples.

When will you all accept the rejection of Republican policies in 2006 and 2008 by the American voters?

One of the first steps in recovery is acceptance.

The same way Dems accepted the rejection by the voters of their policies in 1994? And accepted their further losses throughout the 90s and then twice for the White House? Pot, meet kettle!

What we have now which you and other non-thinking blind partisans seem to be OK with, is one-party rule. Doesn't matter what party it is, one-party rule is the LAST thing anyone should want. Our system should always be adversarial, not kum-by-ya.

You voted for "change" and so far there's very little of it. Mostly we're seeing the continuation and magnification of the SAME policies the voters rejected! This should disturb you greatly though you shouldn't be surprised -- most of the things from the previous administration you object to, Dems supported with their Congressional votes! And the only change is, more of the same!

When will your known keen intellect kick in and eschew blind partisanship? When it does, so will buyer's remorse.

Here's the example, funny how the OP only mentions term limits for Democrats all the while attempting to convey her wish for change.

Term Limits the only solution for real change

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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,

 

[Iriemon]

I think we should have a proportional representation system in the HOR as opposed to term limits. Under our system contrary views are squelched by the "winner take all" electoral system. I think or government would be better served by having a wider representation of political views in the House.

 

[American Horse]

I think we should have a proportional representation system in the HOR as opposed to term limits. Under our system contrary views are squelched by the "winner take all" electoral system. I think or government would be better served by having a wider representation of political views in the House.

The HOR is already proportionally representative of the population of Congressional districts; each of about 688,000 population. Congress could add districts with smaller populations represented in each; but the unwieldiness of more members, I suppose is the reason that hasn't happened. How would you make it more representative, less winner take all than it already is? And I'm not used to thinking of the House as winner take all. How is that so?

edit: I have to believe you are talking about the speakership and the committee chairs?

 

[Iriemon]

I think we should have a proportional representation system in the HOR as opposed to term limits. Under our system contrary views are squelched by the "winner take all" electoral system. I think or government would be better served by having a wider representation of political views in the House.

The HOR is already proportionally representative of the population of Congressional districts; each of about 688,000 population. Congress could add districts with smaller populations represented in each; but the unwieldiness of more members, I suppose is the reason that hasn't happened. How would you make it more representative, less winner take all than it already is? And I'm not used to thinking of the House as winner take all. How is that so?

edit: I have to believe you are talking about the speakership and the committee chairs?

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean proportional to population (which yes the HOR already has) but a proporational election system in which each party receives seats proportionate to the number of votes it gets. If the Libertarian party gets 18% of the votes in a state, its candidates should get 18% of the seats of that state in the HOR.

With this system, you have political views represented in Congress that are now foreclosed by a winner take all system in which only two parties can invariably exist (for anything other than a short term spoiler role like Perot played in the 90s and Nader played in the 2000 election.

 

[American Horse]

I think we should have a proportional representation system in the HOR as opposed to term limits. Under our system contrary views are squelched by the "winner take all" electoral system. I think or government would be better served by having a wider representation of political views in the House.

The HOR is already proportionally representative of the population of Congressional districts; each of about 688,000 population. Congress could add districts with smaller populations represented in each; but the unwieldiness of more members, I suppose is the reason that hasn't happened. How would you make it more representative, less winner take all than it already is? And I'm not used to thinking of the House as winner take all. How is that so?

edit: I have to believe you are talking about the speakership and the committee chairs?

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean proportional to population (which yes the HOR already has) but a proporational election system in which each party receives seats proportionate to the number of votes it gets. If the Libertarian party gets 18% of the votes in a state, its candidates should get 18% of the seats of that state in the HOR.

With this system, you have political views represented in Congress that are now foreclosed by a winner take all system in which only two parties can invariably exist (for anything other than a short term spoiler role like Perot played in the 90s and Nader played in the 2000 election.

I think you are clear now, but I think it already works that way except for the Electoral College.

The smallest representative Federal element is the Congressional district thus a "Representative". If a Libertarian candidate takes a district he represents that district as a member of the state's congressional delegation, but delegations of states do not vote en-block, Otherwise our Libertarian would seem to represent a proportional seat, at least as proportional as it can be subdivided. Our Libertarian may get 90% of the vote in his district, and all the others get just over 50% in theirs, but we have no way of recognizing disproportionate enthusiasm (individual voters of a district except within the district) for any candidate other than in their representing the district they were elected from.

The "third-parties" are not well represented in the House Committee system, since those committee structures are divided into two factions for debate, and bringing legislation to the full floor for a vote. But when the House (or the Senate) is divided very closely down the middle, as it was in the last couple of years before the Ds took the house, an independent could wield a lot of power depending on the power of his or her ideas.

Now when it comes the the Electors of the Electoral "College", they are equal in number to the whole number of each states congressional delegation, but they are a seperate body from the House and the Senate. States can decide how they want their electors votes to be cast, irrespective of how other states do it, but it still would not matter in a presidential election, unless there was a very close election like in 2000.

To make a change in which a state gives up their influence without all the others also doing so across the board seems remote. So an amendment to the Constitution would need to be passed to accomplish this. Once that process begins, there will be a huge public debate, as well as an education project on both sides of the issue. It seems to be a mixed bag, but few small states would give up their unitized vote in the Electoral vote of a President along fractional lines.

I favor the present system; not for this reason but this has been the way with representative republics since the age of the Roman Republic when all 35 of the tribes stood in the Campus Martius, voted and had their votes tallied, aye or nay , winner take all accordingly. I realize that simply because it's been this way for a very long time doesn't matter much to those who seek immediate change, but if they can get an idea to catch on and spread, they can matter in elections.

 

[Chris]

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.

Agreed.

We need term limits.

We also need to eliminate the U.S. Senate. It is a relic of a bygone time.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

It's almost funny the way that some Rs just assume that if there were term limits, Repubs would win the majority back.

I for one haven't seen anyone assuming that or asserting that. Perhaps you can prop up that strawman a little, with some actual examples.The same way Dems accepted the rejection by the voters of their policies in 1994? And accepted their further losses throughout the 90s and then twice for the White House? Pot, meet kettle!

What we have now which you and other non-thinking blind partisans seem to be OK with, is one-party rule. Doesn't matter what party it is, one-party rule is the LAST thing anyone should want. Our system should always be adversarial, not kum-by-ya.

You voted for "change" and so far there's very little of it. Mostly we're seeing the continuation and magnification of the SAME policies the voters rejected! This should disturb you greatly though you shouldn't be surprised -- most of the things from the previous administration you object to, Dems supported with their Congressional votes! And the only change is, more of the same!

When will your known keen intellect kick in and eschew blind partisanship? When it does, so will buyer's remorse.

Here's the example, funny how the OP only mentions term limits for Democrats all the while attempting to convey her wish for change.

Term Limits the only solution for real change

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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,

To support your weak strawman, to prop it up, you removed important context from the OP as you quoted it. The little qualifier, "the list goes on and on." You do this obviously because your argument has no legs to stand on, and after making it sound like your assertion happens all the time -- like maybe you had several examples handy -- you fall back on distorting the OP and twisting it to fit your weak strawman.

Then, you conveniently ignore the rest of my answer to you, because you're falling back on dishonesty.

Until you wake up and realize nothing's really changed you won't be able to be a objective commenter, merely another Baa in a large herd of sheep. I know you're better than that. For years you have railed against what you called apologists and excuse-makers for Bush, now you're quickly becoming what you railed against -- a blind, partisan apologist and excuse-maker, for Dems and Obama!

I have known you and interacted with you for several years on another board, and I know you're not stupid. So we're left with willful dishonesty to explain your blind partisan hackery. For example, what say you about the bow to the king? Which by itself isn't that big of a deal really, but the LIES about it are. Are you're really, as an intelligent person, buying the White House's story that it wasn't a bow? That Obama needed to bow because of the "height difference" or, that he needed to bow to shake with both hands when the video clearly shows there's very little height difference and he only used one hand? C'mon now, this is exactly the type of shit you hated Bush for! Where's the change?

Wise up Sarah.

 

[Iriemon]

The HOR is already proportionally representative of the population of Congressional districts; each of about 688,000 population. Congress could add districts with smaller populations represented in each; but the unwieldiness of more members, I suppose is the reason that hasn't happened. How would you make it more representative, less winner take all than it already is? And I'm not used to thinking of the House as winner take all. How is that so?

edit: I have to believe you are talking about the speakership and the committee chairs?

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean proportional to population (which yes the HOR already has) but a proporational election system in which each party receives seats proportionate to the number of votes it gets. If the Libertarian party gets 18% of the votes in a state, its candidates should get 18% of the seats of that state in the HOR.

With this system, you have political views represented in Congress that are now foreclosed by a winner take all system in which only two parties can invariably exist (for anything other than a short term spoiler role like Perot played in the 90s and Nader played in the 2000 election.

I think you are clear now, but I think it already works that way except for the Electoral College.

The smallest representative Federal element is the Congressional district thus a "Representative". If a Libertarian candidate takes a district he represents that district as a member of the state's congressional delegation, but delegations of states do not vote en-block, Otherwise our Libertarian would seem to represent a proportional seat, at least as proportional as it can be subdivided. Our Libertarian may get 90% of the vote in his district, and all the others get just over 50% in theirs, but we have no way of recognizing disproportionate enthusiasm (individual voters of a district except within the district) for any candidate other than in their representing the district they were elected from.

The "third-parties" are not well represented in the House Committee system, since those committee structures are divided into two factions for debate, and bringing legislation to the full floor for a vote. But when the House (or the Senate) is divided very closely down the middle, as it was in the last couple of years before the Ds took the house, an independent could wield a lot of power depending on the power of his or her ideas.

Now when it comes the the Electors of the Electoral "College", they are equal in number to the whole number of each states congressional delegation, but they are a seperate body from the House and the Senate. States can decide how they want their electors votes to be cast, irrespective of how other states do it, but it still would not matter in a presidential election, unless there was a very close election like in 2000.

To make a change in which a state gives up their influence without all the others also doing so across the board seems remote. So an amendment to the Constitution would need to be passed to accomplish this. Once that process begins, there will be a huge public debate, as well as an education project on both sides of the issue. It seems to be a mixed bag, but few small states would give up their unitized vote in the Electoral vote of a President along fractional lines.

I favor the present system; not for this reason but this has been the way with representative republics since the age of the Roman Republic when all 35 of the tribes stood in the Campus Martius, voted and had their votes tallied, aye or nay , winner take all accordingly. I realize that simply because it's been this way for a very long time doesn't matter much to those who seek immediate change, but if they can get an idea to catch on and spread, they can matter in elections.

In the current system, the Libertarian candidates could get 20% in each district, yet end up with no representation in congress. IMO, if the Libetarian gets 20% in the State, then 20% of the representatives seated from that state should be Libertarian, even if the Libertarian party did not get a majority (or plurarlity) in any district.

Libertarians are not represented in Congress now b/c people recognize that if they vote Libertarian, their vote will be "wasted" because there is little chance of a Libertarian candidate winning a majority.

 

[foggedinn]

In the current system, the Libertarian candidates could get 20% in each district, yet end up with no representation in congress. IMO, if the Libetarian gets 20% in the State, then 20% of the representatives seated from that state should be Libertarian, even if the Libertarian party did not get a majority (or plurarlity) in any district.

Libertarians are not represented in Congress now b/c people recognize that if they vote Libertarian, their vote will be "wasted" because there is little chance of a Libertarian candidate winning a majority.

The courts long ago mandated super majority black districts so that blacks could be elected. Of course, there is no way to gerrymander a liberterian district.

You're actually advocating a change from a democratic republic to some form of bastardized parlimentary system. There are several systems already in existance in the world. Which is closest to your liking. Canada, England, India?

I doubt the end result of any such change would be any more to your liking than the current system. We would probably end up with a much more liberal political landscape than we have now. What republicans call left wing liberal democrats in this country are considered far right politically in most democracies in the world.

Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it; along with its unintended consequences.

 

[American Horse]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean proportional to population (which yes the HOR already has) but a proporational election system in which each party receives seats proportionate to the number of votes it gets. If the Libertarian party gets 18% of the votes in a state, its candidates should get 18% of the seats of that state in the HOR.

With this system, you have political views represented in Congress that are now foreclosed by a winner take all system in which only two parties can invariably exist (for anything other than a short term spoiler role like Perot played in the 90s and Nader played in the 2000 election.

I think you are clear now, but I think it already works that way except for the Electoral College.

The smallest representative Federal element is the Congressional district thus a "Representative". If a Libertarian candidate takes a district he represents that district as a member of the state's congressional delegation, but delegations of states do not vote en-block, Otherwise our Libertarian would seem to represent a proportional seat, at least as proportional as it can be subdivided. Our Libertarian may get 90% of the vote in his district, and all the others get just over 50% in theirs, but we have no way of recognizing disproportionate enthusiasm (individual voters of a district except within the district) for any candidate other than in their representing the district they were elected from.

The "third-parties" are not well represented in the House Committee system, since those committee structures are divided into two factions for debate, and bringing legislation to the full floor for a vote. But when the House (or the Senate) is divided very closely down the middle, as it was in the last couple of years before the Ds took the house, an independent could wield a lot of power depending on the power of his or her ideas.

Now when it comes the the Electors of the Electoral "College", they are equal in number to the whole number of each states congressional delegation, but they are a seperate body from the House and the Senate. States can decide how they want their electors votes to be cast, irrespective of how other states do it, but it still would not matter in a presidential election, unless there was a very close election like in 2000.

To make a change in which a state gives up their influence without all the others also doing so across the board seems remote. So an amendment to the Constitution would need to be passed to accomplish this. Once that process begins, there will be a huge public debate, as well as an education project on both sides of the issue. It seems to be a mixed bag, but few small states would give up their unitized vote in the Electoral vote of a President along fractional lines.

I favor the present system; not for this reason but this has been the way with representative republics since the age of the Roman Republic when all 35 of the tribes stood in the Campus Martius, voted and had their votes tallied, aye or nay , winner take all accordingly. I realize that simply because it's been this way for a very long time doesn't matter much to those who seek immediate change, but if they can get an idea to catch on and spread, they can matter in elections.

In the current system, the Libertarian candidates could get 20% in each district, yet end up with no representation in congress. IMO, if the Libetarian gets 20% in the State, then 20% of the representatives seated from that state should be Libertarian, even if the Libertarian party did not get a majority (or plurarlity) in any district.

Libertarians are not represented in Congress now b/c people recognize that if they vote Libertarian, their vote will be "wasted" because there is little chance of a Libertarian candidate winning a majority.

Ok, now I get it. But the truth of the matter is that they made a good showing but didn't win a majority anywhere. They apparently don't get enough favor or a strong enough consituency. This could mean that they simply aren't offering the best arguments. With a binding enough issue a new party can gain traction. It has happened before when the issue was there, with the Republican Party completely replacing the Whig party inside of 6 years as the best example. We have a strong Libertarian Party here in Indiana, and especially here in the University town of Bloomington, and we get good candidates. I pay attention to their arguments and like a lot of what they say, and when I vote for someone else it's because of some oddities in the Libertarians political philosophy. I think most people confront the same problem. Since I believe what they say, they would only have to change a few things they say to get my vote; but therein lies the problem.

 

[oreo]

100% agreed. Here we have Presidents that are in office max 8 years. But we seem to have a U.S. congress & senate that can be born in the chamber & die there. I mean we have senators right now that are so ancient--one has to keep nudging their shoulders to keep them awake during senate hearings. It's ridiculous.

The longer they'rer in the senate/congress corruption seeps into their blood. They lose their initial reason for being there, & then go on a all concentration for their personal political gain--meaning re-election after re-election, etc. That's all they think about, not the good of the American public. They then do anything to attain that goal.

If term limits were in place--we would have fresh faces that really believed in what they were doing--they would fight off the urge--to party down with lobbyists--& other campaign donors--to simply get re-elected. They would focus soley on what needs to be done in this country to improve it.

I think for a better government--we as Americans should demand it. If the President can only hold office for 8 years, then so should a congressman & senator.

 

[Zoomie1980]

100% agreed. Here we have Presidents that are in office max 8 years. But we seem to have a U.S. congress & senate that can be born in the chamber & die there. I mean we have senators right now that are so ancient--one has to keep nudging their shoulders to keep them awake during senate hearings. It's ridiculous.

The longer they'rer in the senate/congress corruption seeps into their blood. They lose their initial reason for being there, & then go on a all concentration for their personal political gain--meaning re-election after re-election, etc. That's all they think about, not the good of the American public. They then do anything to attain that goal.

If term limits were in place--we would have fresh faces that really believed in what they were doing--they would fight off the urge--to party down with lobbyists--& other campaign donors--to simply get re-elected. They would focus soley on what needs to be done in this country to improve it.

I think for a better government--we as Americans should demand it. If the President can only hold office for 8 years, then so should a congressman & senator.

Term limits are a cop-out for a lazy electorate. What needs to change are seniority rules in both chambers that base committee chairmanships and leadership positions based solely on seniority. Voters elect their incumbents because, after a while, they become extremely powerful advocates for being able to send federal dollars back home.

The current problem is basically a result of people who want all congressmen booted.....except theirs.....because theirs keeps protecting the base, the manufacturing plant, or other local pet projects that employ a lot of people...

 

[Iriemon]

In the current system, the Libertarian candidates could get 20% in each district, yet end up with no representation in congress. IMO, if the Libetarian gets 20% in the State, then 20% of the representatives seated from that state should be Libertarian, even if the Libertarian party did not get a majority (or plurarlity) in any district.

Libertarians are not represented in Congress now b/c people recognize that if they vote Libertarian, their vote will be "wasted" because there is little chance of a Libertarian candidate winning a majority.

The courts long ago mandated super majority black districts so that blacks could be elected. Of course, there is no way to gerrymander a liberterian district.

You're actually advocating a change from a democratic republic to some form of bastardized parlimentary system. There are several systems already in existance in the world. Which is closest to your liking. Canada, England, India?

I doubt the end result of any such change would be any more to your liking than the current system. We would probably end up with a much more liberal political landscape than we have now. What republicans call left wing liberal democrats in this country are considered far right politically in most democracies in the world.

Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it; along with its unintended consequences.

Yes, that is true.

We would still have a Senate and the president who will be elected by the winner take all system.

But as I've pointed out, that system props up the two party system, relegating any other political party to an occassional spoiler role.

I think our nation would be better served if there were voices other than Dems and Reps in the HOR. IMO it wouldn't hurt to have Libertarians, Greens, or whoever whose voices can be heard in proportion to the percentage of Americans that support them.

A two party monopoly encourages a degree of corruption and stifles political expression, IMO.

 

[Iriemon]

I think you are clear now, but I think it already works that way except for the Electoral College.

The smallest representative Federal element is the Congressional district thus a "Representative". If a Libertarian candidate takes a district he represents that district as a member of the state's congressional delegation, but delegations of states do not vote en-block, Otherwise our Libertarian would seem to represent a proportional seat, at least as proportional as it can be subdivided. Our Libertarian may get 90% of the vote in his district, and all the others get just over 50% in theirs, but we have no way of recognizing disproportionate enthusiasm (individual voters of a district except within the district) for any candidate other than in their representing the district they were elected from.

The "third-parties" are not well represented in the House Committee system, since those committee structures are divided into two factions for debate, and bringing legislation to the full floor for a vote. But when the House (or the Senate) is divided very closely down the middle, as it was in the last couple of years before the Ds took the house, an independent could wield a lot of power depending on the power of his or her ideas.

Now when it comes the the Electors of the Electoral "College", they are equal in number to the whole number of each states congressional delegation, but they are a seperate body from the House and the Senate. States can decide how they want their electors votes to be cast, irrespective of how other states do it, but it still would not matter in a presidential election, unless there was a very close election like in 2000.

To make a change in which a state gives up their influence without all the others also doing so across the board seems remote. So an amendment to the Constitution would need to be passed to accomplish this. Once that process begins, there will be a huge public debate, as well as an education project on both sides of the issue. It seems to be a mixed bag, but few small states would give up their unitized vote in the Electoral vote of a President along fractional lines.

I favor the present system; not for this reason but this has been the way with representative republics since the age of the Roman Republic when all 35 of the tribes stood in the Campus Martius, voted and had their votes tallied, aye or nay , winner take all accordingly. I realize that simply because it's been this way for a very long time doesn't matter much to those who seek immediate change, but if they can get an idea to catch on and spread, they can matter in elections.

In the current system, the Libertarian candidates could get 20% in each district, yet end up with no representation in congress. IMO, if the Libetarian gets 20% in the State, then 20% of the representatives seated from that state should be Libertarian, even if the Libertarian party did not get a majority (or plurarlity) in any district.

Libertarians are not represented in Congress now b/c people recognize that if they vote Libertarian, their vote will be "wasted" because there is little chance of a Libertarian candidate winning a majority.

Ok, now I get it. But the truth of the matter is that they made a good showing but didn't win a majority anywhere. They apparently don't get enough favor or a strong enough consituency. This could mean that they simply aren't offering the best arguments.

Or it could mean that if there are 15% that support Libertarian, they may not be completely on board with Republicans but the worst case scenario is a Dem win. Yet in the winner take all system, if they go to the poll, they will hold their nose and vote Republican, b/c they know if they vot Libertarian, that is helping the Dem candidate win.

So the votes for Rep or Dem may not reflect the person's choice, just the lesser of two evils, because in a winner take all system a vote for another party's candidate means helping the Rep or Dem you least favor.

With a binding enough issue a new party can gain traction. It has happened before when the issue was there, with the Republican Party completely replacing the Whig party inside of 6 years as the best example.

Well sure, we can wait another 150 years for a new party, maybe. In the meantime, the Libertarians and Greens are effectively disenfranchised from having a voice in Washington.

A proportional system would also give a third party a much stronger chance, because people are more likely to vote for it if they believe their vote will actually count, which gives the third party actual power.

We have a strong Libertarian Party here in Indiana, and especially here in the University town of Bloomington, and we get good candidates. I pay attention to their arguments and like a lot of what they say, and when I vote for someone else it's because of some oddities in the Libertarians political philosophy. I think most people confront the same problem. Since I believe what they say, they would only have to change a few things they say to get my vote; but therein lies the problem.

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.

 

[American Horse]

We have a strong Libertarian Party here in Indiana, and especially here in the University town of Bloomington, and we get good candidates. I pay attention to their arguments and like a lot of what they say, and when I vote for someone else it's because of some oddities in the Libertarians political philosophy. I think most people confront the same problem. Since I believe what they say, they would only have to change a few things they say to get my vote; but therein lies the problem.

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.