Term Limits / Playing to One's Base

[Philip]

I would think that voters across whatever party affiliations would agree that term limits is a great idea, and one long past needed. For both parties, there are well-financed and organized groups that are constantly attempting to woo, buy and influence politicians. Resulting in most of them becoming particularly dependent upon such groups, and thus gear their views to line up best with those they think will help keep them being re-elected. So, what does this tell us about money, power and influence, as it directly connects to those who desire to be a career politician? How many truly have the backbone and lack such desperate clinging to their office, that they will actually LEAD with heartfelt and informed decisions, as opposed to constantly thinking how to move their popularity numbers upward, in preparation for the next election cycle? Very few!

Seems also there might be a way to use ONLY taxpayer money to directly finance give exposure to campaigns - in such a way that all candidates are allowed only X amount of advertising dollars, and that ALL office holders are guaranteed a similar level of exposure to their positions, ideas, and questions about them, in mandated televised forums. I don't know how this could work, but my thought is to level the playing field for candidates that might be really good, but that would never have enough of the money-backing machines to even achieve name recognition. Right now, from the get-go, the parties control and vet all - to an unhealthy extent. Candidate "Joe Blow," with excellent ideas, might as will be the proverbial tree that fall in some remote forest.

And what level of term limits would be good? President continues with two, perhaps two terms in Congress? Lesser offices? What ye think about this issue? It's not an issue that would only be good for any one party - but if we could make some good changes, it would be great for ALL. The obscene amounts of money and influence, the ridiculous and agonizing two-year presidential campaigns - these cannot be good.

[edwardmurphy]

I agree.

Also, gerrymandering has got to go. Politicians shouldn't be permitted to pick their voters and there should be no "safe" seats. That change alone would do a lot to make politicians more accountable to their constituencies.

I'd also like to see federal lawmakers banned from taking lobbying jobs after their terms end. It wouldn't need to be permanent, but it should be long enough to remove some of the incentive for lawmakers to tailor their voting records to the interests of the industries they hope to lobby for.

And finally, I'd like to see a lower threshold for 3rd Party candidates to get onto ballots and into debates.

[Philip]

Ed: Also, gerrymandering has got to go. Politicians shouldn't be permitted to pick their voters and there should be no "safe" seats. That change alone would do a lot to make politicians more accountable to their constituencies.

True. But despite the fact that this is likely to never happen, there is the exceptionally tricky issue of HOW you fairly draw the lines. It has to be done in regards to populations - mere geographic divisions wouldn't be fair. And no matter where you move a line, it's gonna favor some party's candidates.

Ed: I'd also like to see federal lawmakers banned from taking lobbying jobs after their terms end. It wouldn't need to be permanent, but it should be long enough to remove some of the incentive for lawmakers to tailor their voting records to the interests of the industries they hope to lobby for.

Absolutely! Slam that cozy little revolving door!

Ed: And finally, I'd like to see a lower threshold for 3rd Party candidates to get onto ballots and into debates.

That would be healthy, in the long run, even if all such would do is help issues get before the public that the two pandering parties are likely to ignore. Right now, 3rd party candidates tend to be a lot more liberal. Meaning, they would take votes away from Democrats.

[edwardmurphy]

True. But despite the fact that this is likely to never happen, there is the exceptionally tricky issue of HOW you fairly draw the lines. It has to be done in regards to populations - mere geographic divisions wouldn't be fair. And no matter where you move a line, it's gonna favor some party's candidates.

Sure, it's a complex issue, but these are abominations. They're vile and undemocratic and they've got to go. I'm sure that if we put some non-partisan statisticians and computer modelers on it they could come up with a good system. I actually think that a geographic model would probably be fine. There's no way to make everything perfectly fair to everyone, everywhere, all the time, but it should all even out.

That would be healthy, in the long run, even if all such would do is help issues get before the public that the two pandering parties are likely to ignore. Right now, 3rd party candidates tend to be a lot more liberal. Meaning, they would take votes away from Democrats.

At the moment alternative parties are pretty much a waste of time. They almost never go anywhere, and the second one of them gets a hint of momentum the Big Two combine to push them back into the shadows. Consequently they only attract the angriest and/or most idealistic people. If 3rd party candidates got TV time, spots on the debate stage, and just exposure in general then they might have a shot at winning something on occasion. That might just lead to wider acceptance and a broader audience. If 3rd party candidates were perceived as having a legitimate chance to win they'd get broader support. I'm not suggesting that the White House will be on the table in the next 100 years, but imagine if there were 10 3rd party senators and 50 3rd party reps. Combine that with reforms eliminating gerrymandering and dark money who knows, maybe we'd have a democracy again.

Heh, look at me getting all starry-eyed...

[RickD]

Excuse me,

When was the US ever a democracy?

[edwardmurphy]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

We all know that the people complaining about chemicals in their food mean dangerous chemicals, and not water. Same thing here. Obviously the United States is a republic and our government is based on representative democracy rather than direct democracy. The fact remains that big money, gerrymandering, and a rigid two-party system are undermining the ability of the people to influence how our nation is run.

Also, you're supposed to be sarcastic, not pedantic. Get back in character.

[RickD]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

We all know that the people complaining about chemicals in their food mean dangerous chemicals, and not water. Same thing here. Obviously the United States is a republic and our government is based on representative democracy rather than direct democracy. The fact remains that big money, gerrymandering, and a rigid two-party system are undermining the ability of the people to influence how our nation is run.

Also, you're supposed to be sarcastic, not pedantic. Get back in character.

My name is St. Richard The Sarcastic. My middle name is Pedantic. My last name is D. FYI.