Should Senators serve 4 year terms instead of 6 year terms?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:52:59 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Should Senators serve 4 year terms instead of 6 year terms?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Should Senators serve 4 year terms instead of 6 year terms?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
#3
Undecided
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 21

Author Topic: Should Senators serve 4 year terms instead of 6 year terms?  (Read 2005 times)
RBH
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,210


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 27, 2006, 01:41:37 AM »

I think it would be a positive change. It would slightly reduce the fundraising advantages of the office.

Any thoughts?
Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,480


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2006, 01:47:32 AM »

NO, but limited terms of 2.  Same for House of Reps, but 6 terms of 2 years.  Same goes for State Legislature in PA.  Time to boot some of these long term Repubs in NE Philly! Smiley
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2006, 01:48:36 AM »

I've honestly never understood why senators have 6-year terms.  Is there any other position in the United States with that term length?  4-year terms seems to be the most standard.
Logged
KEmperor
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,454
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 27, 2006, 01:52:26 AM »

I've honestly never understood why senators have 6-year terms.  Is there any other position in the United States with that term length?  4-year terms seems to be the most standard.

The Senate is supposed to have slow turnover, its supposed to be the least affected by the passing whims of the electorate.  Thats that the House is for, with its short 2 year terms.  By staggering the election of Senators so that only one third of the body is up for re-election every two years it insures continuity.  It makes for a simple progression, the House has a 2 year turnover, the Presidency 4 years, and the Senate 6 years.
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,305
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2006, 01:58:45 AM »

Prior to the 17th Amendment, were Senators appointed and removed by the state at will, or were they appointed to six year terms and then either re-appointed or replaced at the end of the six years?
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2006, 02:04:11 AM »

I've honestly never understood why senators have 6-year terms.  Is there any other position in the United States with that term length?  4-year terms seems to be the most standard.

The Senate is supposed to have slow turnover, its supposed to be the least affected by the passing whims of the electorate.  Thats that the House is for, with its short 2 year terms.  By staggering the election of Senators so that only one third of the body is up for re-election every two years it insures continuity.  It makes for a simple progression, the House has a 2 year turnover, the Presidency 4 years, and the Senate 6 years.

Oh, interesting.  I never knew that, but it makes sense now that you say so.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2006, 02:09:17 AM »

Prior to the 17th Amendment, were Senators appointed and removed by the state at will, or were they appointed to six year terms and then either re-appointed or replaced at the end of the six years?

They would be elected for a full term, or the remainder of a partial term.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2006, 08:54:21 AM »


No.  I do agree though that they should not be able to serve more than 2 or 3 consecutive terms.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2006, 11:18:36 AM »

Same goes for State Legislature in PA.  Time to boot some of these long term Repubs in NE Philly! Smiley

Yet we will be allowed to keep the long term Dems that are/would be elected?  Tongue  Let's not forget that Mark Cohen is the most senior State Representative in NE Philly.


I voted no on the question.
Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,480


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2006, 11:28:45 AM »

Same goes for State Legislature in PA.  Time to boot some of these long term Repubs in NE Philly! Smiley

Yet we will be allowed to keep the long term Dems that are/would be elected?  Tongue  Let's not forget that Mark Cohen is the most senior State Representative in NE Philly.


I voted no on the question.

Ehh, I think it's safe to say his seat would surely be Dem.  Same goes for Mike McGeehan.
Logged
GOP = Terrorists
Progress
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,667


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2006, 11:59:11 AM »

No.  However politicians shouldn't be allowed to run for the same seat two elections in a row.  Kinda like the term limits for VA Gov.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2006, 01:41:00 PM »

Same goes for State Legislature in PA.  Time to boot some of these long term Repubs in NE Philly! Smiley

Yet we will be allowed to keep the long term Dems that are/would be elected?  Tongue  Let's not forget that Mark Cohen is the most senior State Representative in NE Philly.


I voted no on the question.

Ehh, I think it's safe to say his seat would surely be Dem.  Same goes for Mike McGeehan.

And that proves my point that the only reason why you'd care about term limits is to get rid of Republicans in the area.  Tongue
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,043
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2006, 02:07:18 PM »

No.  As well as what everybody else has already said, one class of senators would always be elected with the president, and the other class would always be elected in the mid-terms.  I envisage long-term problems with such a system.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 27, 2006, 03:55:15 PM »

No, I think the system as it currently stands is fine. I also don't like the idea of term limits in the Senate since the Senate has a much higher rate of turnover than the House. The Senate is designed to be a stately deliberative body that is above the populist impulses apparent within the House.
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 27, 2006, 04:00:52 PM »

I think the founders did a pretty good job in establishing the terms of office. KEmperor explained it well. Anyway it would take a constitutional amendment to change it. That's not worth the effort for simply changing the term from 6 to 4 years.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2006, 10:24:31 PM »

absolutely not!
Logged
Rococo4
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2006, 01:15:12 AM »

No, you shouldnt have to run in a Presidential cycle every time.  Or not have to, depending on how the math works out for each individual senator. Our framers were pretty smart.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2006, 01:53:10 AM »

No. And we should go back to the old system of the State electing senators. The senate was never meant to be a body that was elected by the populace.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: November 28, 2006, 08:37:03 AM »

6 years in prison of course. We should indict them before they take office.
Logged
NewFederalist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,143
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: November 28, 2006, 05:31:19 PM »

No. And we should go back to the old system of the State electing senators. The senate was never meant to be a body that was elected by the populace.

I agree. The State Legislature electing the U.S. Senators gave more importance to being a member of a State Legislature and insulated the U.S. Senate from public passion. That is why the House is elected directly and every two years at that. Those clever rascals who drafted the Constitution really knew what they were doing!
Logged
Joe Biden 2020
BushOklahoma
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,921
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.77, S: 3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2006, 06:26:57 AM »

I voted no.

I think the House should be divided in half with each serving four year terms instead of two, but with elections held every 2 years, kind of like the Senate.  I don't like the two year terms for one reason.  The Congressperson basically has to run a continuous campaign and can't really focus most of their term on their jobs (if they have the desire to in the first place) and have to spend at least 15 of their 24 months in office campaigning and fundraising.  I know it will never happen, but I advocate 6-year terms for Senate with 3-term limit (18 years total) and 4-year terms for House with 5-term limit (20 years total).
Logged
Citizen James
James42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,540


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2006, 06:32:37 PM »

I've honestly never understood why senators have 6-year terms.  Is there any other position in the United States with that term length?  4-year terms seems to be the most standard.

The Senate is supposed to have slow turnover, its supposed to be the least affected by the passing whims of the electorate.  Thats that the House is for, with its short 2 year terms.  By staggering the election of Senators so that only one third of the body is up for re-election every two years it insures continuity.  It makes for a simple progression, the House has a 2 year turnover, the Presidency 4 years, and the Senate 6 years.

From the federalist papers #62:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Undisguised Sockpuppet
Straha
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787
Uruguay


Political Matrix
E: 6.52, S: 2.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2006, 06:35:42 PM »

Why don't we save time and indict senators before they take office?
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 0.059 seconds with 14 queries.