Originally Posted by djplong

Thought provoking.

I don't think I'd limit the House and Senate to 2 terms - maybe 3 but that could be something for negotiation - especially if the House terms are changed to 4 years.

Taxpayer funded elections? Ok, how do you decide who gets the funds? Fund every fringe candidate out there? I have nightmares of the Monty Python "Silly Party" sketch running through my head.

How do you limit someone's Free Speech rights to limit them to a 60 or 90 day campaign window?

And Iowa/NH's intent was not to spend lots of money on a miniscule number of candidates. It was intended to allow an underfunded candidate to have a chance at 'making a splash' - making an environment where the 'little guy' could compete with the 'deep pockets' guy. Now, an idea for ROTATING the first primary between a list of states with no more than 2 House seats? That could achieve the same goal while being a little more fair. (And I say that while living in NH)

No pension benefits? Sorry - that's more of the "race to the bottom". If you limit terms to, say, 20 years (8 House + 12 Senate if one guy 'graduates'), you're talking about a pension of 1/5 (20%) of their salary. That's the way that FERS works now - 1% per year of service.