One Term Per Politician

[JakeHero]

I was inspired by a section of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America for this thread, which states it would aim to have elected government officials have only one term for their respective offices. This is a good idea for numerous reasons. So for the sake and purpose of this thread I am going to call this idea "One Term."

The jist of one term is each politcian can have only one term for their positions, once this term is expired they cannot run for that office again.

With this measure in effect, and the constant flow of new blood into the government would reduce many problems plaguing government(Or at least my opinion, so no bothersome user goes "Nah-uh"). Such as corruption, without having the convenience of always being elected in their domains, a politician would be less enticed by bribes if they realize they only have one term to cement their reputation and serve the people, though there will always be greedy bastards whoring themselves out for money, hopefully this will minimize it.

Another boon of One Term would be greater efficiency within government. After a politcian is elected eventually he'll have to worry about re-election sometime down the road instead of attending his duties. Without the hasle of a second campaign, the figure would be free to do what delegates are expected to do.

To prevent elective monopolies where no matter how obviously incompetent a politician is; they'll be constantly re-elected because the voters of that area would rather have an old drunk, murdering windbag as politician, than have some new blood. Let's be honest, sometimes the majority's mandate is not the best one.

I wanted to keep this short, so sorry if it comes off as weak, but I figured you all could fill-in-the-blank of benefits from One Term. Contribute or tear down my idea if you like, regulars.

[SyntheticTacos]

Plus: Politicians won't have to suck up to everyone and make bad decisions just to make sure they're re-elected.

Minus: Politicians won't have to care as much about what they do that pisses the people off because they don't have to worry about being re-elected; i.e. they can break their campaign promises without it backfiring on them next election

It's a bittersweet thing, really.

[LordJaric]

A 2nd term is needed, because they might start something but they might not get it done in there first term.

[MortifiedPenguins]

But doesn't this basically strain the will of the people and thier own political power.

If the people wish to vote someone into office and they wish to have him continue in office, so be it.

While I liked your idea on fresh blood into our government, and how it would weaken the aristocracy that has formed from it, this would be a restriction on the will of the people and who they wish to vote for.

Term limits may be good, but not after one term. Some senators and office holders need some time to get expierenced in thier job and then get into "the zone" so to say.

I think the better thing to do is just to leave it to the people and let them decide who they wish to stay into office.

[Korriken]

personally, I think the ability to have recall elections would work better, the ability for the people to throw the politicians out of their office by a 2/3 vote of americans.

president not performing? kick em out!

of course have the vote once per year. why 2/3 bote? well a 1/2 vote would be too easy. if you can get 2/3 of the american people to come forward to say "kick em out!" then the president should be able to be tossed out.

of course, who would replace the president? well, of course, anyone that ran in the presidential election should be eligible, they can opt out or during the recall election, when someone voted to kick the president, they also vote who they want in.

the winner finishes the term... or until the next recall election comes up.

it sounds good on paper... but i think it would draw way WAY too much media attention.

[Ravariel]

At 4/22/07 11:36 PM, Korriken wrote:
it sounds good on paper... but i think it would draw way WAY too much media attention.

It would also cost a ton of money, hamstring the government into an even more middle-of-the-road offend-noone policy stance, and keep politicians constantly focussed on campaigning instead of governing.

I think Penguin hit it on the head. If we limit to a single term, we'd have to lengthen the terms. 2 years is barely long enough to gain the knowledge and political capital to get things done. Even 3 or 4 isn't very long, considering most economic plans usually take 8-10 years to show progress, nevermind diplomatic relations... having to re-learn the world's ambassadors... re-making friends in various countries. With turnover that quick, we'd run out of competent people way too fast and get mired even further in mediocrity than we are now.

Term limits are fine, and so is fresh blood... but I think a single term is a swing too far in that direction. 2 term limit for the presidency is fine, 3 for the Senate and 4 for the HoR would make sense to me.

[Demosthenez]

At 4/22/07 10:41 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: I think the better thing to do is just to leave it to the people and let them decide who they wish to stay into office.

"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct."
Thomas Jefferson

It is an honor but not a pleasure to be here.
We are gathered here to witness the end of an era –It is time to eulogize the Citizen Statesman, for the Citizen statesman is dead. Murdered by career politicians determined to stay in power, murdered by career politicians determined to rule, not govern.

Why do I feel the need deliver such a eulogy? Is it just because ballot access is not happening for me, Tom Martin, Libertarian Candidate for US Senate nominated by a recognized political party? Or is it a much larger problem for all citizens because the system has been re-arranged so that the career politicians have our elections rigged so they only face each other in their ongoing dance of power.
The state constitutions promises “Election shall be Free and equal” we must ask When?
Good points.

Incumbents are reelected at a rate of around 90%on average and that is lowballing it. Thats fucked up.

Lots of good info here.

To make it simple, career politicans are killing America. Pork, partisan politics, corruption, destruction of anything more than a 2 party system, stupid legislation, the power of lobbyists, protection of the status quo no matter how harmful, inability to tackle big issues, they (and many more problems) can all be directly traced back to our self serving politicans who are more concerned with reelection than serving their country. I can expand more clearly if anyone wishes.

READ THIS BOOK.

We need term limits or at least force politicans to serve non-consecutive terms. We need fresh blood. What we dont need is fools like Strom Thurmond serving like a bajillion years in the Senate. Fucking retarted, you dont need to be in office for decades and spending other peoples money while in office should not define your life.

[Ravariel]

At 4/22/07 11:58 PM, Grammer wrote: With only one term, politicians might not be motivated to do a good job once they're in office, because they're not up for re-election.

On the flip side, they might be motivated to be more proactive, as they would only have this single chance to do something. When you're not trying to keep your job for half of your term, there's a lot of "real" business you can attend to. And when you don't have to worry about pissing people off, there is a freedom to enact risky policies that most politicians normally wouldn't. This, of course, could be a good or bad thing.

[Demosthenez]

At 4/22/07 11:43 PM, Ravariel wrote: Term limits are fine, and so is fresh blood... but I think a single term is a swing too far in that direction. 2 term limit for the presidency is fine, 3 for the Senate and 4 for the HoR would make sense to me.

I agree you would have to either expand the term or do like this suggests, reasonable term limits.

If I was King of the World, I would make the term limit a flat 4 years for every branch and allow people to run as many terms for whatever branch as they want. The catch is they can only be consecurtive terms for 2 terms. That means once you hit 8 years in whatever you go do something else so politicans can actually reconnect with real people since they no longer are in their stupid ivory towers in D.C.

But I cant make it more clear, career politicans are a curse on America. They are a curse on the world. Only with reform can we lift this curse but it will never happen. Why would legislators, who routinely lie about serving only a few terms and are guarantueed one of the best jobs in the world with some of the best benefits and job security, want to harm their successful racket when it is working so good for them? They get to go around all day feeling important and, considering all the Type A personalities in D.C., they all know their individual ideas are the right ones.

DEMAND change. The aristocracy we have now is unacceptable and will destroy our nation.

At 4/22/07 11:58 PM, Grammer wrote: With only one term, politicians might not be motivated to do a good job once they're in office, because they're not up for re-election.

Are you serious?

[Karzand]

There are some good points but the lack of political stability would harm us in the long run. Also not caring about re-election means a loss of responsibility ( F.x. politician guy-Why should I care if 1/4 of people are unemployed I'm not up for re-election next year)

[Demosthenez]

At 4/23/07 12:17 AM, Karzand wrote: There are some good points but the lack of political stability would harm us in the long run. Also not caring about re-election means a loss of responsibility

The Roman Republic survived for hundreds of years with a rotating system of office that forced people out of big officces in as little as a SINGLE YEAR. And these were times with limited (at best) abilities to monitor their government and ensure their transparency. Worked for them thousands of years ago but it cant work for modern America, the most powerful country ever?

( F.x. politician guy-Why should I care if 1/4 of people are unemployed I'm not up for re-election next year)

So they spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to get into office only to become lazy assholes? Uhh, kinda doubt it. I kinda doubt to many people are going to willingly become lame ducks in office considering the trouble they go through to be elected.

[fattysnacks]

At 4/22/07 10:25 PM, LordJaric wrote: A 2nd term is needed, because they might start something but they might not get it done in there first term.

But what if they start something in their 2nd term and don't finish it then and need a 3rd term. Then they start something in their 3rd term and need a 4th term to finish it. Then they start something in their 4th term...

[Korriken]

At 4/23/07 01:10 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

So they spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to get into office only to become lazy assholes? Uhh, kinda doubt it. I kinda doubt to many people are going to willingly become lame ducks in office considering the trouble they go through to be elected.

that doesn't come out of their pocket, trust me. they do all kinds of fundraisers to get the money, mainly from their wealthiest supporters. the president also gets i think around 200,000 a year salary.. I'll have to check up on that when i get home from work today.

[JoS]

Plus: Ends political careerism. You have some Congressman and Senators who have been in office since like the 60's, and I do believe even some who are from the 50's.

Minus: No stability. You need a mix of old pro's and new ideas to get shit done. Imagine if ever 4 years a company fired all their employees and start fresh again. Think of how much knowledge and expertise you just flushed down the shitter and have to start all over again from sratch.

Minus: No accountability. People work hard so they will get elected again. If they do not have to worry about getting elected again you will find some of them deciding to live in Mexico while still collecting a pay check (do not laugh it happened in Canada).

[Dasuraga]

This idea would put everybody in a lame duck position, although limits are nescesary, I think that limiting to only 1 turn might be detremental.

[Demosthenez]

At 4/23/07 12:02 PM, JoS wrote: Minus: No stability. You need a mix of old pro's and new ideas to get shit done.

Thats what the staffers and beauracrats are for. Its not like you need to be some genius to decide which way to vote when you have people with all the information at your back.

And nothing is getting down now except for ginarmous spending bills laced with pork. No new programs, no reforms, no accountable budget, nothing. Our career politicans are fucking up our system and spending our tax dollars like nothing, we dont need these "Old Pros" to function.

And I bring up Republican Rome again. Im sure Imperator can explain it better because my knowledge is still sketchy. Consuls, the most powerful unit in Republican Rome, only had one year in office. Censors served for like 2 years. And I cant find anythiing else right now. Damn, I wish I had this one book I read, it explained this shit real good. All I remember besides those two was that office holders rotated a LOT and had to take breaks between posts in office. Except for Pontifex Maximus, I remember that one was for life.

Minus: No accountability. People work hard so they will get elected again.

This argument is crap. If you spend months to get into office in a system as compeitive as Americas you are not going to sit on your ass in office. And if you did, we have plenty of media here in Ameirca that would love to crucify a politican, good news. And I would gladly trade one or two lazy fools for the entireity of our political careerists we have now.

THE INCUMBENCY REELECTION RATE IS IN THE HIGH 90'S. Garbage.

At 4/23/07 09:46 AM, Korriken wrote: that doesn't come out of their pocket, trust me. they do all kinds of fundraisers to get the money, mainly from their wealthiest supporters. the president also gets i think around 200,000 a year salary.. I'll have to check up on that when i get home from work today.

And this dude is married to a REAL rich bitch. Taking second or third mortgages out and taking loans out is very common in political campaigns.

[scorchin-hot]

Some politicians are actually good and we would want them for more than one term. Maybe terms should be shortened to two or three years. of course if it was two i would say they could have 4 terms. I know it would cost more especially with the two year one but i think it would be worth it.

[troubles1]

my only concern is that sometime it takes longer to get there objectives done, so 2 terms may be needed, also in the instances were you find a person who is truly for the people and in every way reflects your idea of what a politician should be, we might want to keep that person around.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 4/23/07 01:58 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 4/23/07 12:02 PM, JoS wrote: Minus: No stability. You need a mix of old pro's and new ideas to get shit done.

Thats what the staffers and beauracrats are for. Its not like you need to be some genius to decide which way to vote when you have people with all the information at your back.

Staffers and bureaucrats are there to make sure the "system" runs smoothly. Politicians are there as the direct representatives of the people.

Our career politicans are fucking up our system and spending our tax dollars like nothing

Are you suggesting that anyone else would be more fiscally responsible? Perhaps it's a function of having too many neocons...?

THE INCUMBENCY REELECTION RATE IS IN THE HIGH 90'S. Garbage.

People like incumbents. Are you interested in removing the freedom of choice that we so dearly cherish?

And this dude is married to a REAL rich bitch. Taking second or third mortgages out and taking loans out is very common in political campaigns.

So what? How does that affect us? What we need is campaign financing from the feds and guaranteed TV/radio time...

[Demosthenez]

At 4/23/07 03:14 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Staffers and bureaucrats are there to make sure the "system" runs smoothly. Politicians are there as the direct representatives of the people.

Exactly, they make the system run. Politicans are only the head of a byzantine chain of command and placing a new one in where there was old ones does not change this.

The system does not need the figurehead to run. The system runs fine.

Are you suggesting that anyone else would be more fiscally responsible? Perhaps it's a function of having too many neocons...?

Go look at the pork spending and everyone who takes part in defecit spending. Neo-cons have nothing to do with that and if you believe that you are just substituting bias in to fit your agenda. Neo-cons are a symptom of the system, just as big government liberals are. Everyone spends, everyone.

People like incumbents. Are you interested in removing the freedom of choice that we so dearly cherish?

Elections are not free, they are skewed and rigged to give undue advantages to the incumbents and the two major parties. Incumbents have name recognition, the pork they brought back to their state to prove their worth, and outspend their challengers by huge margins. I mean, for fucks sake, everyone hates politicans yet we elect the same stupid douchebags into office for years, it doesnt matter what they do (or most importantly, do not do).

The job is to damn easy to keep once you get it. That is unacceptable. In the private sector, if these people were being judged for their job performance, they would be routinely dumped because of just how terrible they perform their jobs. I mean, we have incumbents being reelected at stupendous rates and this is not even every year. For the Senate it is 6 years and the House it is 2. In the private sector, companies routinely release 10-20% of their workforce every year. And, at best, we can do this anywhere from 2-6 years. Incompetents keep their job because no one judges their performance, it is all about outside appearances and glamour, not policy. It is impossible to keep an agile and competent government when we reward incompetents for their behavior with unlimited life in office.

That means these people have, cushy, guarantueed jobs for life if they just play the pork game and dont make to many waves. That is bullshit, we should not be rewarding these career politicans with a job that is as easy as theirs is to hold on to. Fucking unacceptable.

So what? How does that affect us? What we need is campaign financing from the feds and guaranteed TV/radio time...

I dont care about that, that skims the surface of our problems. Campaign finance reform is not going to fix the underlying problems that incumbents are re-elected at a stupidly high rate and that politicans routinely do nothing of signifigance.

[HighlyIllogical]

The founders had their reasons. They are infinitely more wise than any of us here. As far as I know, they wanted senators to be chosen indirectly, but since we've subverted that, they are there, as the founders wanted, to be the "wise old men [now women, too]." They are supposed to be independent - during 6 years, a few mistakes won't ruin your chances. It makes them freer from public pressure so that they can vote their convictions.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Demo.

If a one term policy was enacted for Congress.

Would it make more sense to lengthen the term for each group. 4 years instead of 2 for the House, 6 instead of 4 for Senate.

Or you could install, say, a three term limit.

[HighlyIllogical]

The idea of limits is ludicrous. The Founders didn't propose it – it serves no purpose other than to limit the experienced leaders from serving.

[Der-Lowe]

I agree, the only reason re-election exists is because of power-hungry politicians who do not know how to step aside.

[LordJaric]

At 4/23/07 06:36 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: I agree, the only reason re-election exists is because of power-hungry politicians who do not know how to step aside.

Not all politicians are like that ether they have to finish something they started or they have been so good that the people want them to stay in as long as the law permits them to so they can do more good things.

[Der-Lowe]

At 4/23/07 06:38 PM, LordJaric wrote: Not all politicians are like that ether they have to finish something they started or they have been so good that the people want them to stay in as long as the law permits them to so they can do more good things.

Sorry, but I have little faith in politicians, the only reason I've seen for re-election is that.
If you have done whings well, you should run, so that people remember you as a good leader.

[Demosthenez]

Mortified, I still like this proposal the most.

If I was King of the World, I would make the term limit a flat 4 years for every branch and allow people to run as many terms for whatever branch as they want. The catch is they can only be consecurtive terms for 2 terms. That means once you hit 8 years in whatever you go do something else so politicans can actually reconnect with real people since they no longer are in their stupid ivory towers in D.C.

At 4/23/07 06:11 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: The idea of limits is ludicrous. The Founders didn't propose it – it serves no purpose other than to limit the experienced leaders from serving.

The Founders also believed in slavery and that only white, male, property owners were allowed enfranchisment. So the fuck what. And the Founders didnt propose the Air Force either, doesnt mean it serves no purpose. I mean, shit, you really want to get into a debate on what the founders proposed and didnt propse? You really think you are going to win that debate with the beliefs you hold about what the government should do?

Spare me the lame argument. We have a problem now that can be directly traced back to our career politicans and we need to fix it or our nation will stagnate into mediocrity and the aristocracy we abolished with the Revolutionary War will birth again with a continual line of family politicans and technocrats.

"I apprehend... that the total abandonment of the principle of rotation in the offices of President and Senator will end in abuse." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Rutledge

"I dislike, and strongly dislike... the abandonment in every instance of the principle of rotation in office and most particularly in the case of the President. Reason and experience tell us that the first magistrate will always be re-elected if he may be re-elected. He is then an officer for life. This once observed, it becomes of so much consequence to certain nations to have a friend or a foe at the head of our affairs that they will interfere with money and with arms. A Galloman or an Angloman will be supported by the nation he befriends.--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. (Sounds like our little Israeli lobby now, dont it?)

"[The] President seems a bad edition of a Polish King. He may be elected from four years to four years, for life. Reason and experience prove to us, that a chief magistrate, so continuable, is an office for life. When one or two generations shall have proved that this is an office for life, it becomes, on every occasion, worthy of intrigue, of bribery, of force, and even of foreign interference. It will be of great consequence to France and England to have America governed by a Galloman or Angloman. Once in office, and possessing the military force of the Union, without the aid or check of a council, he would not be easily dethroned, even if the people could be induced to withdraw their votes from him. I wish that at the end of the four years, they had made him forever ineligible a second time." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams

"If the principle of rotation be a sound one, as I conscientiously believe it to be with respect to this office, no pretext should ever be permitted to dispense with it, because there never will be a time when real difficulties will not exist and furnish a plausible pretext for dispensation." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Guest

"General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after eight years. I shall follow it, and a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor

"If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution or supplied in practice, his office, nominally for years, will in fact become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance. Believing that a representative government, responsible at short periods of election, is that which produces the greatest sum of happiness to mankind, I feel it a duty to do no act which shall essentially impair that principle; and I should unwillingly be the person who, disregarding the sound precedent set by an illustrious predecessor, should furnish the first example of prolongation beyond the second term of office." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Legislature of Vermont
Thomas Jefferson

I am willing to bet James Madison and George Washington held similar beliefs. I dont know, however, because I havent read what they have to say on this. In any case, you were wrong anyway.

[Karzand]

At 4/23/07 01:10 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 4/23/07 12:17 AM, Karzand wrote:

The Roman Republic survived for hundreds of years with a rotating system of office that forced people out of big officces in as little as a SINGLE YEAR. And these were times with limited (at best) abilities to monitor their government and ensure their transparency. Worked for them thousands of years ago but it cant work for modern America, the most powerful country ever?

While Roman consuls served very short terms members of the Roman Senate served for life, and Senate positions were passed from father to son. Eventually Rome got an emperorwho serverd for life. As Rome got weaker more people strove for power which lead to the rapid succession of Emperors, that lead to a loss of political stability and the fall of the Roman Empire.

[Demosthenez]

At 4/23/07 11:46 PM, Karzand wrote: While Roman consuls served very short terms members of the Roman Senate served for life, and Senate positions were passed from father to son.

1) I dont think the title was hereditary. I dont remember that. If you have a link proving me wrong please share.
2) The Senators were really just debators and didnt hold any real administrative power.
3) The Senators were answerable only to themselves and to Rome. Thus the corruption.

My point still stands. The people who held the most power in Rome had their offices cycle through at incredibly fast rates. I know the comparison to a Consul to a legislator is not that strong but my point still stands, it worked for them, why cant it work for us?

[TheMason]

At 4/23/07 06:56 PM, Demosthenez wrote: Mortified, I still like this proposal the most.

If I was King of the World, I would make the term limit a flat 4 years for every branch and allow people to run as many terms for whatever branch as they want. The catch is they can only be consecurtive terms for 2 terms. That means once you hit 8 years in whatever you go do something else so politicans can actually reconnect with real people since they no longer are in their stupid ivory towers in D.C.

I like the idea of having some sort of term limits...four terms for Reps and two terms for Senators. However, I do like the idea of the "time out" where after a specified amount of time they may run again.

What I don't like about the idea you like is that I like the idea of a total turn over of the Lower House in the middle of a Presidential or Senatorial term...keeps the Executive and Upper House on their toes!

At 4/23/07 06:11 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: The idea of limits is ludicrous. The Founders didn't propose it – it serves no purpose other than to limit the experienced leaders from serving.

The Founders also believed in slavery and that only white, male, property owners were allowed enfranchisment. So the fuck what. And the Founders didnt propose the Air Force either, doesnt mean it serves no purpose. I mean, shit, you really want to get into a debate on what the founders proposed and didnt propse? You really think you are going to win that debate with the beliefs you hold about what the government should do?

I like the USAF refrence! Also if they thought it was so perfect why did they build-in an insturment to amend it?