The Two Party Monopoly

[SubGod22]

The Two-Party Monopoly.

I agree with a lot of what's said in the article. Things will never change if the same people and career politicians run everything.

[RoyalShock]

Re: The Two Party Monopoly

Things will never change if the same people and career politicians run everything.

It's not just that. Even getting new blood won't change anything if they are party-first types of people. It is going to take some truly radical candidates that are not party sell-outs. Party sell-outs can be bought and softened.

Furthermore, we need term limits to fuel congressional turnover. That way, the lobbyists and string-pullers can't just get a politician in their back pocket and keep him there. Maybe they won't shy away from unpopular issues that need addressed just because they fear electoral defeat.

Give 'em a max of six years - one Senate term, two or three House terms.

Somehow find a way to level the playing field for all parties. I agree with keeping out the riff-raff candidates. But some states have rediculous requirements. Debates must involve all qualified candidates. If you're on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the electoral college, you're in the debate.

[rrshock]

Royal, I was thinking maybe 12 years total for congress. That would allow senators to be re-elected once. Reps to be elected 6 times total. Or change the senators to every 2 years like the reps instead of the 6 year thing now.

But I think term-limits is the place to start.

[Maggie]

I am not convinced that term limits will solve any problems.

[RoyalShock]

I am not convinced that term limits will solve any problems.

No, but it could eliminate a big hurdle to getting some problems solved.

[Maggie]

I am not convinced that term limits will solve any problems.

No, but it could eliminate a big hurdle to getting some problems solved.

How?

[RoyalShock]

What politician that wants re-elected is going to do anything to fix programs like Medicare or Social Security besides raise taxes?

At least if their days are numbered they might actually find the courage to work toward a solution.

[RoyalShock]

Royal, I was thinking maybe 12 years total for congress. That would allow senators to be re-elected once. Reps to be elected 6 times total. Or change the senators to every 2 years like the reps instead of the 6 year thing now.

But I think term-limits is the place to start.

12 years just seems too long. Too easy to get comfortable and cozy-up with special interests. Now if the Senate was a 4-year term I could agree with an 8-year limit.

[Maggie]

What politician that wants re-elected is going to do anything to fix programs like Medicare or Social Security besides raise taxes?

At least if their days are numbered they might actually find the courage to work toward a solution.

Still not convinced….come on Royal…I am confident you can do better.

[RoyalShock]

Besides what I've already said:

- The longer the tenure, the more they lose touch with their constituents and the they begin to serve themselves (and each other). It would help deter those who aspire to become career politicians.

- They'll actually have to live in the world they are affecting. So perhaps more thought and care will go into their legislation.

- More competitive elections and hopefully, more competing backgrounds and viewpoints (i.e. diversity). Choices are good for the consumer and good for the voter.

- More turnover should result in less concentration of power among the more "senior" members, helping to break up the "power elite". New members would be more likely to seek higher committee positions as the incentive to be patient and "fall in line" is gone.

Didn't our founding fathers view public service as a "leave of absence", not a change of career?

And for rrshock, here are some numbers I found from an article on term limits written in 1995. The average stay in Congress is 13.2 years. A 12-year limit wouldn't do much. The party folks who advocate a 12-year limit are essentially creating the illusion of supporting term limits.

In 1995 the Congressional turnover rate was 17%. In the first 100 years turnover averaged 43%. A 3-term House limit would increase turnover to 37% and positions of leadership would be attained in 4 years or less instead of 16.4 years.

[Maggie]

Royal,

The longer the tenure, the more they lose touch with their constituents and the they begin to serve themselves (and each other). It would help deter those who aspire to become career politicians.

I agree that some in Washington lose touch with their constituents. But what would term limits do to keep them from serving themselves? “Special interests” will always be in play – a Congressmen who is subject to term limits may not consider themselves a career politician but they may well consider what is “best” for them after they leave office, i.e. a plum job at a corporation or lawfirm. What impact would term limits have on that very real possibility?

- They'll actually have to live in the world they are affecting. So perhaps more thought and care will go into their legislation.

Maybe so…or maybe not…see above.

- More competitive elections and hopefully, more competing backgrounds and viewpoints (i.e. diversity). Choices are good for the consumer and good for the voter.

Absolutely, but I fear many qualified individuals shy away from politics for obvious reasons – it seems to attract only those who desire power.

- More turnover should result in less concentration of power among the more "senior" members, helping to break up the "power elite". New members would be more likely to seek higher committee positions as the incentive to be patient and "fall in line" is gone.

Yes, I think you may be correct – but I think the “power elite” would still exist, it would just shift elsewhere. However, experience does count for something even if it is in public office. There are good Senators and Congressmen that take their duties very seriously.

Didn't our founding fathers view public service as a "leave of absence", not a change of career?

Yes, I think they did.

I don’t know – personally, I think the burden falls on us, on election day.

[RoyalShock]

Your first point is a valid one. I'm sure there would be some who sell-out for a plum job once they leave office. I think that already occurs.

As to your statement about qualified individuals shying away, I think the effect would be the opposite with term limits. It would make Congressional service less desirable for the power seekers. Sure, the may try other avenues, but at least there would be fewer of them drafting legislation.

I don't disagree with your last statement. But it looks to me as if many of your counterpoints are arguing that the system wouldn't be perfect. Of course it wouldn't be perfect, but I do think it would be better.

[rayc]

I mostly agree with Royal, but like most issues, there are good arguements that can be made for both sides.

Perhaps "limited" unlimited terms, if that makes sense. For example, a maximum of X?X? continuous terms or years to be followed by a (equal?) length of time out of office. After which you would become elgible once again if you wished to run.

I see the value that years of experience can bring to the position, but that same tenure also provides more exposure for corruption. Unfortunately WE voters do not seem to view our own Congressmen/women with the same eyesight we view other's. And as a result we have become a very poor check on the abuse in Congress. Short of some type of imposed term limits, I don't see any control of the current situation.

We will never be able to eliminate greed and self serving people, but a break in tenure might, just might, make the individual Congressman less valuable to outside firms.

All just food for thought, of course, I'll leave it with Maggie and Royal to figure out.

[Maggie]

Your first point is a valid one. I'm sure there would be some who sell-out for a plum job once they leave office. I think that already occurs.

As to your statement about qualified individuals shying away, I think the effect would be the opposite with term limits. It would make Congressional service less desirable for the power seekers. Sure, the may try other avenues, but at least there would be fewer of them drafting legislation.

I don't disagree with your last statement. But it looks to me as if many of your counterpoints are arguing that the system wouldn't be perfect. Of course it wouldn't be perfect, but I do think it would be better.

A seat in Washington is always about power, to what degree depends upon the person, term limits or not. Term limits obviously are "undemocratic" at one level, but from a different perspective can be seen as democracy-enhancing. So I appreciate your point of view.

Sure no system is perfect – and one with term limits would not be perfect either. However, perfection or not – I don’t know if it would ultimately be better…just different.

I guess part of the reason that I have never liked the idea of term limits is I think voters should vote – and if they are sick of an individual they shouldn’t elect him or her. Practically speaking the voters have been, as rayc points out, a poor check on Congressional abuse.

But whose fault is that?

[rayc]

Another thought just popped into my mind, what about strict terms on committee memberships or chairmanships in lieu of term limits itself? Would that be of any benefit??

Now I will bow out. :)