7 ms·

Trump railed against the system that allowed politicians to be bought. It turns out his solution is to term limit congress. Sounds like treating a symptom not t

by josho 10y ago

Trump railed against the system that allowed politicians to be bought. It turns out his solution is to term limit congress. Sounds like treating a symptom not the root cause.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
postcarnival 10y ago
so what, then let's offer solutions and try to get them enacted? why all the armchair bitching on this site as if everyone is an expert just because they write code? what he did is nothing short of monumental and he WANTS to help America. If everyone is so damn smart then get involved and suggest changes. It's not like he's a fucking robot that is going to sit back and count how many marble statues he has in his garden!
- SMUx 10y ago
  I understand the sentiment but comments like this detract from the value of this community.
  - postcarnival 10y ago
    actually I just read the replies and I see quite a few productive ones! just saying...
- legodt 10y ago
  He wants to help white, cis male America. Trump has demonstrated great disdain for anybody who isn't that
  - r_smart 10y ago
    Yes, for example one of the first things he talked about in his victory speech was helping out the inner cities. He must not know that there are high populations of black people in those areas.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Want money out of presidential politics? Make everybody run using only the presidential-campaign fund. You know, that one that you check the box on your tax return to give a couple bucks to? As for Congress, we also already have a good fix, we just never got around to passing it. Congressional politics are full of money because the districts are too large, on average. The districts are too large because in the 50 states, with 320 million people, we have only 435 voting members in the House of Representatives. The solution is more Representatives and smaller districts; when you don't have to run a campaign in multiple expensive markets across a broad area, you don't need as much money (and can get to know your constituents better). And it turns out... there's a constitutional amendment for that. Way back in 1789 when Congress met for the first time after the Constitution went into effect, they submitted twelve amendments to the states. Ten of them were ratified quickly and became what we know as the Bill of Rights. The other two were not ratified by enough states, and were mostly forgotten. Today, it's common for Congress to put a time limit on an amendment, saying it has to be ratified within X years or it's dead. But back then they didn't do that. So in 1992 a random university student discovered one of the two "forgotten" amendments and that it was still legislatively "live" -- it would take effect if enough states ratified them. He campaigned hard and got the amendment (which says any increase in salary for members of Congress doesn't take effect until after the next House election) ratified, as the 27th amendment. The other one is still sitting out there, and would become part of the Constitution if enough states (currently, 27) would ratify it. And it changes the formula for how many Representatives there are, and how they're apportioned. The original text of the Constitution set a cap on the size of the House of Representatives, at one Representative per 30,000 people. The apportionment amendment would raise that to 1 per 50,000, and the version passed by the Senate would require increasing the number of Representatives as the population of the US grows. So if you want real change in Congress, campaign to get the House of Representatives enlarged. There's even already an amendment available to help you, if you can get it ratified.
  - hossbeast 10y ago
    Can you give a link to more information about this?
    - 10y ago
- vehementi 10y ago
  Are you under the impression that campaign finance reform is a new issue brought up minutes ago on this forum, and hasn't been extensively researched with proposals before?
- r_smart 10y ago
  In the spirit of your comment, I'd like to suggest a massive income raise for elected federal officials. The leader of the free world makes something like $400k / year. If we were willing to give them more, it might reduce the temptation to take so much from lobbyists, and perhaps save us a lot of money in the long run. If I'm wrong, it won't cost much in the scheme of things anyway.
- Roverlord 10y ago
  https://www.greatagain.gov/ https://www.greatagain.gov/ He's actively seeking suggestions on his transition site. Share your ideas.
  - loisguthrie 10y ago
    Gary Sinise for seretary of Veterans Affairs.
JosephHatfield 10y ago
I don't see how elections themselves aren't term limits. You want to end someone's reign, vote them out. Am I missing something?
- inimino 10y ago
  Incumbents have an advantage and tend to get reelected. Term limits introduce more outsiders by kicking people out after a while.
- baddox 10y ago
  It's a check on direct democracy, which I think is fine in principle. It's the same reason the US has a constitution.
- laughfactory 10y ago
  You're missing the incumbent bias. It's well known we prefer the devil we know to the one we don't--even if we objectively have good reason to dislike the incumbent. Which is to say if, after electing someone to office, we immediately 1) forgot we voted for them, and 2) became completely unaware of their continuing existence and actions in office only then would elections be truly a sufficient substitute for term limits. Otherwise, given the choice, enough votes will be cast to keep the incumbent in office just because he/she is familiar. The thinking seems to go something like: well, that's the name I recognize, and hey, the world hasn't come to an end in the past few years, so... why not. Let's just keep 'em. Versus this other person who might do all kinds of things I can't foresee and may not like.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    But of course incumbent bias is still dependent on the candidate not being unpopular. I can see arguments for term limits, particularly in positions where the composition of the electorate means the other major party isn't likely to seriously challenge the governing party's preferred candidate (usually the incumbent) which makes their position very safe indeed. But anti-corruption isn't one of them. Arguably, from a point of view of anti-corruption, the incumbent needs the special interests a lot less than the new challengers...

by josho 10y ago

Trump railed against the system that allowed politicians to be bought. It turns out his solution is to term limit congress. Sounds like treating a symptom not the root cause.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

postcarnival 10y ago

so what, then let's offer solutions and try to get them enacted? why all the armchair bitching on this site as if everyone is an expert just because they write code? what he did is nothing short of monumental and he WANTS to help America. If everyone is so damn smart then get involved and suggest changes. It's not like he's a fucking robot that is going to sit back and count how many marble statues he has in his garden!

SMUx 10y ago
I understand the sentiment but comments like this detract from the value of this community.
- postcarnival 10y ago
  actually I just read the replies and I see quite a few productive ones! just saying...
legodt 10y ago
He wants to help white, cis male America. Trump has demonstrated great disdain for anybody who isn't that
- r_smart 10y ago
  Yes, for example one of the first things he talked about in his victory speech was helping out the inner cities. He must not know that there are high populations of black people in those areas.
ubernostrum 10y ago
Want money out of presidential politics? Make everybody run using only the presidential-campaign fund. You know, that one that you check the box on your tax return to give a couple bucks to? As for Congress, we also already have a good fix, we just never got around to passing it. Congressional politics are full of money because the districts are too large, on average. The districts are too large because in the 50 states, with 320 million people, we have only 435 voting members in the House of Representatives. The solution is more Representatives and smaller districts; when you don't have to run a campaign in multiple expensive markets across a broad area, you don't need as much money (and can get to know your constituents better). And it turns out... there's a constitutional amendment for that. Way back in 1789 when Congress met for the first time after the Constitution went into effect, they submitted twelve amendments to the states. Ten of them were ratified quickly and became what we know as the Bill of Rights. The other two were not ratified by enough states, and were mostly forgotten. Today, it's common for Congress to put a time limit on an amendment, saying it has to be ratified within X years or it's dead. But back then they didn't do that. So in 1992 a random university student discovered one of the two "forgotten" amendments and that it was still legislatively "live" -- it would take effect if enough states ratified them. He campaigned hard and got the amendment (which says any increase in salary for members of Congress doesn't take effect until after the next House election) ratified, as the 27th amendment. The other one is still sitting out there, and would become part of the Constitution if enough states (currently, 27) would ratify it. And it changes the formula for how many Representatives there are, and how they're apportioned. The original text of the Constitution set a cap on the size of the House of Representatives, at one Representative per 30,000 people. The apportionment amendment would raise that to 1 per 50,000, and the version passed by the Senate would require increasing the number of Representatives as the population of the US grows. So if you want real change in Congress, campaign to get the House of Representatives enlarged. There's even already an amendment available to help you, if you can get it ratified.
- hossbeast 10y ago
  Can you give a link to more information about this?
  - 10y ago
vehementi 10y ago
Are you under the impression that campaign finance reform is a new issue brought up minutes ago on this forum, and hasn't been extensively researched with proposals before?
r_smart 10y ago
In the spirit of your comment, I'd like to suggest a massive income raise for elected federal officials. The leader of the free world makes something like $400k / year. If we were willing to give them more, it might reduce the temptation to take so much from lobbyists, and perhaps save us a lot of money in the long run. If I'm wrong, it won't cost much in the scheme of things anyway.
Roverlord 10y ago
https://www.greatagain.gov/ https://www.greatagain.gov/ He's actively seeking suggestions on his transition site. Share your ideas.
- loisguthrie 10y ago
  Gary Sinise for seretary of Veterans Affairs.

JosephHatfield 10y ago

I don't see how elections themselves aren't term limits. You want to end someone's reign, vote them out. Am I missing something?

inimino 10y ago
Incumbents have an advantage and tend to get reelected. Term limits introduce more outsiders by kicking people out after a while.
baddox 10y ago
It's a check on direct democracy, which I think is fine in principle. It's the same reason the US has a constitution.
laughfactory 10y ago
You're missing the incumbent bias. It's well known we prefer the devil we know to the one we don't--even if we objectively have good reason to dislike the incumbent. Which is to say if, after electing someone to office, we immediately 1) forgot we voted for them, and 2) became completely unaware of their continuing existence and actions in office only then would elections be truly a sufficient substitute for term limits. Otherwise, given the choice, enough votes will be cast to keep the incumbent in office just because he/she is familiar. The thinking seems to go something like: well, that's the name I recognize, and hey, the world hasn't come to an end in the past few years, so... why not. Let's just keep 'em. Versus this other person who might do all kinds of things I can't foresee and may not like.
- notahacker 10y ago
  But of course incumbent bias is still dependent on the candidate not being unpopular. I can see arguments for term limits, particularly in positions where the composition of the electorate means the other major party isn't likely to seriously challenge the governing party's preferred candidate (usually the incumbent) which makes their position very safe indeed. But anti-corruption isn't one of them. Arguably, from a point of view of anti-corruption, the incumbent needs the special interests a lot less than the new challengers...