Four steps to better government
 

1. Term limits - two terms maximum for house and senate.

2. House terms lengthened from 2 to 4 years, with a two term limit. Current two year terms mean they are running for relection continuously.

3. All national elections funded from taxpayer funds, no pacs, no super pacs, no special interests. Anyone that wants to support election funds may do it through an anonymous donation.

4. Limit campaign length to 60 days for primaries and 90 days for the general election

This is, of course, a dream and will never be likely to happen, but these four steps would revolutionaize and invigorate a government that would be responsive to WE the PEOPLE, rather than the wealthy and well-connected.

I like it Coach. :ho:

Too much money and lawyers invested in the current system. I wrote a term paper for a legal history class at the U of MN Law School. It was on prohibition laws and court decisions on Prohibition in MN.

The lawmakers would write various laws trying to stop the selling and buying of liquor in various MN counties. The lawyers would find a loophole and exploit it for all it was worth. The lawmakers would eventually attempt to close the loophole. The lawyers would counter by finding some other weakness in the law just passed. This went on all through the Prohibition era.

Very interesting research this was for me.

Politics is a drug for many people. Cannot see any kind of common sensical rules and laws really working as long as all the money and power are focused on keeping the status quo.

coach - how about we just cut the pay of all legislators - make it a minimum wage job. that way we could find out who was really in it for the seriousness that it should be!

:BigApplause:

:MOJE_whot:...now, there ya go!:ho:

Now THIS is on the right track.

Good beginning but you need honest people first !!!

5. Absolutely no pension benefits for any elected office lower than the vice president.

One other reform I forgot to include - it could either be number 5 or an addendum to number 4 -- A national primary, no more elevating Iowa to the single most important state in the electoral process for nearly a year, with candidates spending inordinate amounts of time and money to capture a miniscule number of votes from the circus that is the caucus system.

Great List, But...
 

I love this list, Coach. But a serious question...

The Supreme Court made the current distasteful operation of the super pacs a First Amendment right. In essence the super pacs are currently "anonymous donations". But they appear to have taken over the electoral process. In many cases, no one knows who they are or where their money comes from.

So how do you get rid of em if in essence the Supreme Court has enabled them?

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.

12 years is too long. I think they start forgetting who they represent after 4 years.

I have a question about your response Djplong, and I quote:

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

In response to your reply, I have a couple of thoughts. How can someone who is an incumbent campaign for 2 years or in some cases longer and still represent the voters and the district he or she was elected to serve? IMHO, and I'm not alone in this thought, most of our elected officials spend a lot more time trying to get re-elected than doing the job they were elected to do. Our present process of letting the money decide how long someone campaigns for an office sucks and needs to be changed. I tend to side with VK and never vote for an incumbent.

Gotta agree with you. They are being paid to do a job and giving them 60-90 days to campaign "on the clock" is more than generous. I know that I give up my rights to free speech the minute I start my work day!

You do not give up your rights to free speech when you start your work day. You are free to give your opinions but common sense tells you what to say and what not to say. Naturally, there are things you are forbidden to discuss with everyone but that has to do with privacy but your opinions are yours to express openly - but they may not be welcomed by everyone. That is where the common sense prevails.

Katz & Army - I agree with you. They WERE elected to do a job. But by the same token, they DO have their 1st Ammendment rights. That's the thing about artificial limits like that - they bump up against the Constitution. But if some Congressperson "does the right thing" and works harder to the point of neglecting a campaign, sure as the sun rises in the east, they'll be punished at the polls for it.

It seems like a Catch-22.

(Oh, and you certainly don't give up your free speech rights after 5pm or whenever your 'shift' ends)

If I wish to remain employed by my employer, my speech must conform with their rules. Politics and religion especially can get one into hot water. Sounds like prohibition on free speech to me.

Clearly the devil is in the details. I threw these proposals out there as food for thought, about where our democracy has gone wrong. One of the beauties of a message board is that you can propose solutions that do not have to have a clear connection to reality. Unlike many posters on this forum, I have no delusions that I actually have any influence, just passing time.

I am sure that you are above responding to me, but how do you know how posters on here feel about posting and what delusions they might have ?

And I know you are just "passing time" with us deluded souls, but curious how you got us all pegged so easily. Perhaps we can learn from you.

And you certainly can post any challenges to anything I post that is not true !

First of all I love the OP idea and most if not all of the points in it. Great thread.

To djplong: I think that most of the politicians in Washington have proven that with out some of the limits they will rape the constitution!
And furthermore they don't have freedom of speech now. They say what their party tells them to say or hit the highway come the next election cycle.

Hmmmmm, you seem to have taken that personally.

Let me re phrase a bit then foryou...

you said "Unlike many posters on this forum, I have no delusions that I actually have any influence, just passing time. "


It appears that you feel there are posters that are deluded...just curious how you know all of this....

esp

I can tell from your posts that you are just a tad above us all and now I know the reason...thank you SIR !

You are welcome.