Forum Post: Potential solution for Congressional Term Limits?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 1:21 p.m. EST by jhon0776
(11)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Dear Occupy,
Here's an idea that will never get past government: term limit reform. I have a specific proposal below that cannot get passed, ever, without going over the head of the current system.
Politicians love to talk about campaign finance "reform" (intentionally nebulous!) It's disingenuous and cynical. We all see right through it: "It's the system, not me! And I can't possibly change!"
Fine: let's accept their argument - the current batch of politicians are, as they themselves say, cynical and self-centered. The founders were right: the Constitution needs to be updated. Here's what:
1) The problem is the election cycle, so, change the election cycle:
a) Each member of Congress, house and senate, gets exactly one term.
b) The term years can remain the same or variable; I'll assume they stay the same, so 2 years for house, 6 for senate. I personally think this is a good system, because the senate, which is longer lived, disperses regional power; that's my opinion though.
c) The electorate does not elect politicians for the election cycle they vote in. Instead, the electorate votes for apprentice politicians, who work for the politicians that were voted in as apprentices the term before, and are now in session.
Example: say it's 2012. We vote in new Congressional apprentices, who have no votes. The Congress that served for the past term retires. Their apprentices form the new Congress - their capabilities and positions are now, hopefully, enlightened by some kind of experience. Now let's push forward the clock. It's 2014, and the guys we voted in into apprenticeship in 2012 take control of Congress, pushing out the old term Congress. At the same time, voters vote for new apprentices, who have no voting power.
I think this way has the advantages of:
1) Avoiding any re-election campaigns whatsoever.
2) Allowing into power only politicians who actually know how politics works.
3) Putting the focus on the long term instead of the short term.
4) Making the public a more long-term thinking voting body.
5) Still allows for long-term projects that the people agree with to mature, because one congressman can pass the project to his elected protege.
People often whine that there's no "previous experience" for politics. They're right, that's stupid and there should be; plus, the people should decide who gets that experience.
Possibly addendum to this proposal: A second vote could occur where the people vote on whether their district's apprentices deserve to enter Congress. This vote would occur at the same time as the vote for new apprentices. There are problems with this part:
1) If they throw out their apprentice, they have no representation in Congress for the next term. Who would choose that?
2) A possible fix for this would be to have the previous Congressman stay for another term. I hate this fix, because it would suddenly be in his interest to work against his successor.
3) Another possible fix is to vote in two apprentices, and then have the second vote choose only one of the two. I don't like this either, because I think that at the highest levels of government, there should be incentives to work together, not intentionally devised incentives to work against. Plus it starts sounding like that TV show.
4) Hopefully there's another fix, but I haven't thought of it.
Other problems:
1) Encourages dynasties. Political dynasties brought us Bush, who basically then brought us Obama. I'm guessing those who like one dislike the other, so this point is universal.
2) One term may be too short for effective change or training. Can always extend the term, but that'll probably add other problems.
3) Effectively doubles the term and halves the power of the population's vote.
4) Murders third parties by penalizing uncertainty.
-Jason Hon
I am an observer of Occupy, not a member. I think that what makes Occupy different from, say, the Tea Party is the sense that Occupy can listen, whereas the Tea Party stomps on heads. Please, Occupy, when you are done listening, make some concrete proposals!
term limits are used to sell of riding issues
Sorry, what are riding issues? I google'd it and all I got was some website about horses.
say I want to a government reform
as part of the reform I tack on term limits
so everyone votes for the reform I want
Dysfunction is opportunity for solution.
an honest man won't support it
I think I'm honest, and I'd support it.
a good idea, until a Billionaire, Mayor Micheal Bilderberg, buys out the opposition to change the law so he can run past the term limit.
We don't need Representative at all - we can do it all ourselves with Direct Democracy over the Internet.
Representative Government is as dead as the Age of Kings
Technology has revolutionized the Navy from a one ship John Paul Jones fleet to a global multi-aircraft carrier monster
why do we straddle ourselves with 18th parlimentarian concepts in the information age? we need to evolve beyond the power of the few who have corrupted republicanism beyond repair.
The Internet is not now, nor will it likely ever be, a secure enough forum to handle that task.
But the internet is good enough for purchasing consumer goods, financial stock transactions and the communication of medical and other scientific information?
Yes, Security is of massive importance ... but certainly not impossible. or else all of the above is fucked!
a revolving system of decentralizedl group of local watchdogs, with some real computer smarts and a paper receipts of the ballot for re-counts would probably do the trick
Interesting idea. I think we do need the representative, because frankly, people don't have time to pay attention to politics all the time. I think my experience is colored by the fact that I'm a scientist, and there's things I care about far more than politics - for example, whether or not two spins are coherent in cryptochrome.
You do have a good point though: in the information age, it's totally possible for everyone to pay attention to politics and thus totally possible for a direct democracy. I, however, am too lazy and thus put for this proposal instead.
And what I'm proposing in essentially a Constitutional Amendment. It takes more than money to change that.
We are not lazy, we are Conditioned to not participate.
It makes it easier for them to bribe the few puppets.
As a Scientist, imagine a generation from now when people are raised in a system where the flow of debate and active participation is breed into out entire educational, communication and voting system
When a vote means more than legitamizing a choice that has already been made by the wealthy of who the candidates will be,
When you can vote directly on the portion of budgetary percentages and have it be proportionally averaged into the final budget.
then our vote will mean something so interest will peak in deciding how the 25% of our income is actually being spent.
Human behavior can easily grow and evolve into an enlightened electorate if given the practical means. of this I am sure.
I think having only one term should make it harder, don't you? Especially if the terms are short.
Being sure the voting public can become enlightened is one thing. It's optimistic and I appreciate that. Changing their circumstances so that it happens is a completely different beast. What are your ideas?
There is one feature of science that makes it difficult for it to be corrupted: if we want, we can check each others' results, as well as perform controlled experiments. That's not something that's really possible in our society - the founders were stupid when they said the states were the labs of democracy. They're just not. Everything is interconnected.
That's why its even more important to let things be long-term. I think the current system makes the voting public too myopic: we're not willing to wait to see what actually does or does not work before subscribing to a new ideology.
I feel that changing this particular facet of politics is, in fact, what will make it so that a generation from now, people are raised in a system of mature debate. I am almost certainly biased by my point of view, but I really believe that what government needs is the scientific method, not more lawyers. The scientific method searches for facts. Facts require knowledgeable debaters. Knowledgeable debaters don't come from nowhere. See where I'm going with this?
I appreciate your idea for a direct democracy. My point, though, is that it's not feasible right now, but a representative democracy, which is what we have now, is, by stint of it already existing. Maybe, in the future, it will be. How will you make it so?
Yes, I see your point, but I also foresee the opportunity to use the web as the new public square to inform, debate and allow people to voice their opinions and concerns on issues.
It would be great if the public Radio and Television frequencies had to dedicate some bandwidth for real public discourse.
Why not? They are public airways. don't we have enough wasteful soap operas, game shows and sporting events (and I love sports)
but we are conditioned to be kept dumbed down and uninvolved.. we easier to mind control that way.
Let's focus on that last point, because I think it's a good one. You state that the current system conditions people to keep dumbed down and uninvolved.
First question: If this is so, then why are all these wide-ranging countrywide grassroots movements suddenly appearing? I'm not addressing your mind control point yet, just the uninvolved part. It seems like there is some sort of force, which I'm not going to try to identify, which is actively pushing people who were not before out into the public square.
I think you're right, though, to suggest that such people are uninformed. Hell, I don't think anybody who hasn't seen the raw economic data can be considered "informed." Me, even if I did see it, I still wouldn't be informed. It would take years of study, and frankly I don't care enough to devote that much time to pure and applied economics (do economists really know anything? A question for another day.)
The mind control part, I think, is a chilling point. I absolutely agree that the system of public discourse is a persuasive one by nature, and the art of persuasion works on two levels: the top line level, where someone actually says something and you hear it, and the bottom line level, where someone tries to condition you without you knowing.
Education, I think, is the art of ridding oneself of the second manipulation. Nobody can rid themselves fully of the first.
So, what is my answer to your point: yes, we are kept dumbed down, no, we are encouraged to become involved. Please look me in the eye, metaphorically, and tell me that's not absolutely dangerous!
As for public discourse, you're right, that would be great. I really miss seeing people on the news who apologize for not confirming facts before anyone calls them out on it.
We pay lip service to involvement. We still struggle for Voting Rights almost a half century after the Voting rights Act. look at the Bush elections!
I would defer to the wisdom of the people before the trust in the few.
We already have that and it has brought us to the edge of the abyss... financially, militarily and environmentally ... the greed of the next quarters balance sheet rules.
The fact is the grass roots movement stems from the innate creativity and frustration of the human mind to find a new solution for what does not work
Pericles was a genius, but what happened when he died? For the rest of the lifetime of Athens, it never produced an effective leader! To me, that's the definition of a problem with the system. If effective leaders never appear, then your system must be flawed.
Why has Occupy not produced a leader? If it does not, it still has hope, but I want to see real results, a real proposal - see what I'm getting at? I see you as experimenting with direct democracy. Prove to me it can work, and you'll get my support.
I would like to see congress go for 5 year terms and the senate for ten years. The senate would be limited to one term. Having odd election years would force people to pay a little more attention and stop lazy people from just pulling the D or the R lever. No one would be allowed to work as a lobbyist before or after serving in the legislature.