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.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

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.

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!

Originally Posted by njbchbum

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!

...now, there ya go!

Originally Posted by njbchbum

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!

Now THIS is on the right track.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

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.

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.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

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 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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by army one

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!