Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2017, 01:59:10 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderators: Beet, Apocrypha)
| | |-+  Should Representatives serve four year terms?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: -skip-
Yes. four years   -11 (47.8%)
No, keep two years   -12 (52.2%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 23

Author Topic: Should Representatives serve four year terms?  (Read 274 times)
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3867
United States


View Profile
« on: May 19, 2017, 09:12:12 am »
Ignore

Should congress(wo)men be elected for four years? I think that two years are very short and cause them constantly to run for reelection. That makes democracy more disfunctional.

Four year terms would either eliminate midterms completely or just half of representatives would be up for election every two years. If the terms for senators aren't changed.

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 09:22:13 am by Sir Mohamed »Logged

United Arab Emirates Immigrant, naturalized US citizen, living in the wonderful state of California, progressive and devoted Democrat. Any questions?

Future endorsements:
- President: Kamala Harris
- CA Governor: Gavin Newsom

- GA-06: Jon Ossoff
Virginia
Virginia C
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6027
Antarctica


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2017, 12:05:17 pm »
Ignore

Wouldn't this take away the idea of a chamber that is responsive to the public (well, responsive in theory..)? Discontent with a new president allows people to put a halt to an unfavorable agenda via the House, between presidential elections. Even if we had 4 year terms of House members, it would still be better to hold their elections during midterms, imo. Though, I do agree with your rationale overall.
Logged

rbk
CrabCake
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12178
Kiribati


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2017, 02:24:52 pm »
Ignore

Would make sense to shift senate terms to eight years then - then you could have them elected in two classes, which would make a lot more sense.

And yes, this would be a good thing; if you combine it with recall so you can abort particularly repellent speciemns midterm. For one it would mean congressmen don't spend more than half their term running for reelection; and for another it would mean that midterms could entirely be focused on state issues which at present are lost in the federal shuffle.
Logged

]
En Marche Force
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 45370
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2017, 08:22:05 pm »
Ignore

My preferred term length for Lower Houses is three years, but four is better than two, so yeah.
Logged

Our numbers are dwindling. Our words are confused.
Some of them have been twisted by the enemy
until they can no longer be recognized.

Now what is wrong, or false, in what we have said?
Just some parts, or everything?
On whom can we still rely? Are we survivors, cast
away by the current? Will we be left behind,
no longer understanding anyone and being understood by no one?
Must we rely on luck?

This is what you ask. Expect
no answer but your own.


Bertolt Brecht
President Johnson
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4168
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2017, 05:52:03 am »
Ignore

Yes, four years is better than two, though I like the concept of midterm-elections. And eight years for senators is definitely too long.

I would change all federal terms to the following:

- President and Vice President: 5 years (term limit: two consecutive terms for president)
- Senators: 5 years; two classes with each up for election every 2.5 years (term limit: two consecutive terms)
- Representatives: 2.5 years (term limit: four consecutive terms)

Proposed election schedule:

Nov 2010: presidential election
May 2013: midterm elections
Nov 2015: presidential election
May 2018: midterm elections
Nov 2020: presidential election
...
Logged

Progressive. Liberal. Fiscal conservative.

There is no problem that cannot be solved. - Nelson Rockefeller

angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17435
View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2017, 11:03:27 am »
Ignore

president:  six-year term; limited to one term
US house:  four-year terms; no term limits
US senate:  abolish

Logged
LabourJersey
Full Member
***
Posts: 210
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2017, 08:07:46 am »
Ignore

Yes, and abolish the senate while you're at it. It would be a nice segue into a parliamentary system that would actually be equipped to govern in the 21st century, unlike the relic currently in place.
Logged
President Johnson
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4168
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2017, 12:56:22 pm »
Ignore

Yes, and abolish the senate while you're at it. It would be a nice segue into a parliamentary system that would actually be equipped to govern in the 21st century, unlike the relic currently in place.

The parlamentary system has the big disadvatage that there is too much party splitting. You got too many parties what makes it difficult to establish coalition governments. I also don't like the concept of party discipline for legislators.
Logged

Progressive. Liberal. Fiscal conservative.

There is no problem that cannot be solved. - Nelson Rockefeller

LabourJersey
Full Member
***
Posts: 210
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2017, 01:43:11 pm »
Ignore

Yes, and abolish the senate while you're at it. It would be a nice segue into a parliamentary system that would actually be equipped to govern in the 21st century, unlike the relic currently in place.

The parlamentary system has the big disadvatage that there is too much party splitting. You got too many parties what makes it difficult to establish coalition governments. I also don't like the concept of party discipline for legislators.

That's not the case for a lot of countries, especially anglophone nations (UK, Australia, NZ and Malta don't have serious party splitting and normally have one party govts). I think the political psychology of Americans isn't receptive to multi-party thinking anyway, at least in the near future.
Logged
Northwest Goff
tara gilesbie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3293
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2017, 02:37:20 pm »
Ignore

It would be a nice segue into a parliamentary system that would actually be equipped to govern in the 21st century

The problem is 21st century neoliberal consensus, so making a system based around it would actually be a devolution.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines