if we kept the 6 year term.. and had one term limit would that not end all the political crap and get more done for the good of the country... that way they are not pulling all the stunts at election time.. and catering to lobiests with the biggest check book?
2006-09-03 17:02:49 · 8 answers · asked by terryshawn1975 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
i'm just throwing out a number.. to get out peeps who are lifers in there... people who do nothing but get a water park built and named after them in their hometown... you know the type... need to get these guys out and fresh blood in every few years.. if they go in knowing they won't live there till they die out maybe they will be more interested in serving the people instead of themselves..open to ideas here folks..
2006-09-03 17:26:21 · update #1
i for one agree with you. I am so tired of them voting theirselves raises while at the same time screwing me and you. Go, Terry, stick it to the MAN!
2006-09-03 19:02:11 · answer #1 · answered by hipichick777 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think a better solution is to eliminate disticts, except for having maybe two or three in very large and populace states (California, Texas, New York). Use cumulative voting and eliminate political party primaries. And eliminate corporate campaign contributions.
This allows many different candidates, and states can select a mix of candidates without gerrymandering problems, allowing for much better representation, with less political purchasing of seats.
I don't like term limits becuase it forces out people who may be doing a good job. But I would be willing to say no two consecutive terms. So, a good candidate can keep coming back, if they want, but not campaigning while on the job,
2006-09-04 00:05:47 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
BAD idea.. and it wouldnot help anything.. what we need is better informed voters and a real selection system instead of an election system. Any one who wants office should be BANNED FROM OFFICE, and we should have every ten adults grouped to choose a captain and every ten captains should have a captain, and the captains of tens and hundreds and thousands shoule get together and seek out the most qualified persons they know or can find amoung successful or well favored persons and place those people into offices as selected.. COMPLETELY ELIMINATING THE ELECTION PROCESS!!!
2006-09-04 00:37:33 · answer #3 · answered by mr.phattphatt 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Term limits are good but yours are too tight. 3 terms in Senate, 7 terms in House. We can debate the numbers, but on the whole I do agree that no one is SOOOOO indispensible in public life that we can't stand having to boot them out after a certain number of terms.
2006-09-04 00:11:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
While I see what you are getting at, I must say that term limits as strict as you're saying would cause more corruption. This is because politicians would not have any big consequences if they screwed the country over.
2006-09-04 00:21:53 · answer #5 · answered by bldenotes 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have a question about your question. Why do we put up with Lobbyist in the first place? Why do we put up with a Congress who allows Lobbyist? Why do we allow a Senate who allows Lobbyist? What the hell good does a Lobbyist do? Why don't we send out a message to our elected to make Lobbying a federal crime.
2006-09-04 00:19:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we should have an EXECUTION CLAUSE.
If you are elected and you F U C K the people over, you are EXECUTED.
That would clear out the entire house and senate....and the big house too.
2006-09-04 00:25:18 · answer #7 · answered by InternetPosterChild 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
One term is good so that there will be no chance for a bad politician to continue his wringdoings.
2006-09-04 00:05:01 · answer #8 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋