Should Representatives serve four year terms?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2024, 02:24:58 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Should Representatives serve four year terms?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: -skip-
#1
Yes. four years
 
#2
No, keep two years
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 34

Author Topic: Should Representatives serve four year terms?  (Read 1360 times)
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,633
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 19, 2017, 09:12:12 AM »
« edited: May 19, 2017, 09:22:13 AM by Sir Mohamed »

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?
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,884
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2017, 12:05:17 PM »

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
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,243
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2017, 02:24:52 PM »

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
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,073
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2017, 08:22:05 PM »

My preferred term length for Lower Houses is three years, but four is better than two, so yeah.
Logged
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,817
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2017, 05:52:03 AM »

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
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2017, 11:03:27 AM »

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

Logged
LabourJersey
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,186
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2017, 08:07:46 AM »

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
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,817
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2017, 12:56:22 PM »

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
LabourJersey
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,186
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2017, 01:43:11 PM »

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
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,058
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2017, 02:37:20 PM »

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
Lachi
lok1999
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,351
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -1.06, S: -3.02

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2017, 03:05:36 AM »

Of course they should, as it gives the government more time between elections to, you know, actually do things, and even give them a bigger time frame for more long term projects.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,080
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2017, 07:56:53 AM »

I'd be ok with it.  It's a constant campaign for the House but maybe a couple of years of doing something instead of running again the second you get elected might be nice.

Or not.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 15 queries.