Repeal 22nd Amendment

How so?

 

A never ending revolving door of novice politicians who don't have a track record to look at.

 

How about one twelve-year term each... with popular votes of confidence/no confidence every four year interval within the single term?

A no-confidence vote would prompt a campaign/electioral process from which the incumbent would be excluded.

 

Wouldn't that essentially be what we have now though but with the possibility of a third term?

Really though the more pressing concern is term limits for congress. I think senators should be limited to 3 terms and congress men 9.(18 years seems like a lot but that would within a year exclude about a 1/3 of senators from serving anymore)

 

the way things are now is definitely not perfect but i don't see how anyone could police the measures recommended here. you would need someone to police the police, and that would be more change than most people would be comfortable with.

 

All term length suggestions aside, the change that's really needed to ensure that elected officials actually do work in the interest of the people who elected them is for those same voters to remain engaged in the government process.. to get basic honest summaries of legislation being debated... and for a means to the collective voice be sustained after votes have been counted and oaths of office have been sworn.

 

My ideas was for members of congress, not the president.

 

We do have primaries though for them in every election, the real problem is voter apathy.

 

That might be a good thing since the track record most of them run on is one of corruption.

 

What motivation to do anything at all good including not being beyond corrupt would a politician have knowing they have no chance of re-election. Despite our cynicalism many politicians actually enjoy their job and do in fact try to do good, and when you reach the level of state government, and then federal, the work can often be hard and complicated.

 

If longevity is a candidates primary motivation for running for any office then I feel that any cynicism is well deserved. As it is, politicians legislate more often in accord with how their actions will affect their next campaign. States with fewer members in the house can create a stronger voice in the senate by continually electing the same senator as seniority often wields greater power, and each state is represented by the same number of senators.
I have no doubt that all politicians enjoy their jobs, if you wish to call them that, very much. When you say they try to do good, I'm certain that they attempt to bring home as much bacon to the state they represent, which as all of them do, the pieces of the pie they have to divide ends up totaling something much greater than the pie they have to work with, hence more unpaid debt. It needs to be understood that what is seen as good and what is rationally correct are not necessarily the same. Go to the government web site and take a look at the thousands of bills that are brought up for debate, and then you might get an idea of how hard and complicated their job is. Not only that, but read some of the bills that are passed in their entirety and you might get a better idea of how some bills get passed, and why government spends so much of present and future taxpayers money.
When politicians terms are limited they can put aside campaigning and concentrate on the legacy for which they will be remembered.
I'd rather see the 17th amendment repealed, and the 22nd extended to cover Congress as well.

 

Well- I suppose the primaries could serve as some sort of litmus test for a given group of relative newbies perhaps to how people respond to them... whether they can be elected or perhaps put a "trustable" face on a piece of legislation that taxpayers might find hard to swallow.

Uuuhh-hhuhuh-uh-huhuh-huh... he said, "swallow"

I don't know what to tell you otherwise- I can't say that you're wrong, because you aren't but I think apathy is not only a problem itself but a symptom of a deeper issue that way too many regular folks share.,, a civic laziness that makes it somehow okay to put the blinders on with regards to the plight of the folks around us... and I'm as guilty of this as anyone. I've harbored some rather deep contempt for such people and I'm a bit past just wondering if this isn't just another case of loathing most in other people those traits that I'd rather not acknowledge the same things in myself..

Arguably, there's also some level of expecting that voting is enough... that we shouldn't have to follow what's going on in D.C.... but I don't know quite how much trust in place in someone who promotes his or her initial candidacy as a move to "clean up the government" I'd like to know who actually believes that a junior senator or house member is going to actually spearhead any honest move toward government reform as that is effectively saying that I intend to be a prick to my future colleagues and rock the boat. surely that would work oh-so-in your favor (<--- psahr-chasm) when trying to rally support for a bill that funds something for your state... or whatever.

Perhaps the time has come to package and distribute a monthly, plain English chronicle of what the how our tax money is being distributed and spent. It's not so much the who- it's the what... and all too often voters are disproportionately interested in the who- and preoccupied with squeaky clean images- effectively insisting to be mislead about character... then we get all up in arms when a scandalous personal flaw hits the press.

It is said that politicians are like diapers in that they need to be changed regularly... and usually for the same reason... which makes perfect sense until you stop and realize that at least in changing diapers, the dirty one is almost always replaced by one that is clean..