Talk Elections

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?

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.

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.

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

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
...

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

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.

The problem is 21st century neoliberal consensus, so making a system based around it would actually be a devolution.

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.

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.