d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Senator (lack Of) Term Limits
Prev12
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Jan 18 2015
Gold: 0.00
Jan 19 2015 01:11pm
they should earn immunity from term limits by being active in committee work and voting. Those that sleep through sessions should get limited
Member
Posts: 38,317
Joined: Jul 12 2006
Gold: 20.31
Jan 19 2015 03:28pm
In all honesty it's a pretty bad idea all the way around. The one pro is that you can theoretically get more "fresh faces" into Congress, but we're not actually electing that many new faces anyway when we get our opportunities. You're starting to see real diversity in the Democratic House districts, which look like what the country is expected to look like by 2045, but the country is still overwhelmingly electing males, who are white, and who are Christian, and who most-significantly are the only people who can afford to compete in multi-million dollar campaigns. Until we get the shadow money out of politics we're not going to be truly getting fresh faces anyway so there's no real benefit to this.

It comes with two deal-breaking drawbacks: it gets rid of the two most important things, seniority and personal relationships that have been molded over the long-term, that allow the Senate to miraculously outpace the House in passing large-scale legislation when it was deliberately designed to move slower.
Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
Jan 19 2015 03:37pm
Here in Canada , there is no term limit for Senators, they are appointed for life.

Some good , some bad with that. Its kinda like being a Judge in America.

A good thing is that their vetted for a lifetime of work - where as the people we vote for, can be relatively new to the Political scene.

Also they can't be bought off by some Cooperation with "Political Donations"

Probably a bad thing when they get older , but sometimes change is not always the best action.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Jan 19 2015 03:39pm
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
Jan 19 2015 03:52pm
Quote (Pollster @ Jan 19 2015 03:28pm)
In all honesty it's a pretty bad idea all the way around. The one pro is that you can theoretically get more "fresh faces" into Congress, but we're not actually electing that many new faces anyway when we get our opportunities. You're starting to see real diversity in the Democratic House districts, which look like what the country is expected to look like by 2045, but the country is still overwhelmingly electing males, who are white, and who are Christian, and who most-significantly are the only people who can afford to compete in multi-million dollar campaigns. Until we get the shadow money out of politics we're not going to be truly getting fresh faces anyway so there's no real benefit to this.

It comes with two deal-breaking drawbacks: it gets rid of the two most important things, seniority and personal relationships that have been molded over the long-term, that allow the Senate to miraculously outpace the House in passing large-scale legislation when it was deliberately designed to move slower.


Ding ding ding ding ding
Member
Posts: 33,855
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 633.87
Jan 20 2015 01:01am
Having qualified legislators with experience and personal connections is important.

We don't need more populaism, we need less. I'd like to see state legislators elect their senators again.
Retired Moderator
Posts: 115,437
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 35,078.94
Trader: Trusted
Jan 20 2015 10:57am
Quote (Mastersam93 @ Jan 19 2015 04:56am)
Con: it allows popular but bad congressmen to stay in office a while

Pro: it allows good congressmen to stay in office a while


This, but I actually don't have an issue with it. Why? Because WEEEEEE can fucking elect them in or out.

If they suck, do your research, vote, and get them out. Problem solved.

People are idiots though and research cars and videogames more than they do politicians.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
Jan 20 2015 12:54pm
Quote (IceMage @ Jan 19 2015 01:34pm)
The perceived need for term limits is just a reflection of our failure as voters.  We continue to elect status quo politicians who won't compromise.


The entrance fee to elections is too high for anybody who isn't bought and paid for to run for office.

Citizens United makes this much worse.

The way to go forward would be to eliminate private money in elections altogether and actually elect candidates based on merit rather than war chests + connection to a political party.
Member
Posts: 14,099
Joined: Jul 13 2006
Gold: 83.30
Jan 20 2015 12:56pm
Quote (Skinned @ Jan 20 2015 06:54pm)
The entrance fee to elections is too high for anybody who isn't bought and paid for to run for office.

Citizens United makes this much worse.

The way to go forward would be to eliminate private money in elections altogether and actually elect candidates based on merit rather than war chests + connection to a political party.


Aye comrade. ;)
Member
Posts: 10,665
Joined: Apr 23 2009
Gold: 129.89
Jan 20 2015 07:04pm
Quote (Bazi @ Jan 19 2015 01:33am)
Pros/ cons?

Had a long conversation about this at work tonight , what are your guys thoughts about this?


yes to term limitations
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev12
Add Reply New Topic New Poll