A glimmer of hope

[paindonthurt]

Im not a fan of telling people who they cannot pick as their representative. And with our two party system, it can often just be changing a name, but nothing else.

Want an amendment that would make a difference? "There shall not be less than one Representative for every 250,000 people"

One major flaw in our Constitution is that it sets a maximum size for the House - one Representative for every 30,000 persons - it failed to set a minimum number, simply trusting Congress to grow with every census.

The original First Amendment proposed by Madison and passed by Congress provided a mathematical formula for Congress to grow, but the Amendment submitted to the States contained a clerical error and was never ratified.

For no good reason, Congress has stayed at the same size for over 100 years, with the only growth coming when new states were added. As a result, our individual voices in Congress get diluted year after year.

We should have over 1500 Congressmen by now. Maybe more. I would settle for my Amendment, which would put us at about 1375 Congressmen.

This would solve so many problems with our government.

Not saying you are wrong but I don’t follow the logic of how more congressmen helps the current problems

the people with power are still gonna get people elected that they want and keep them there for way too long

maybe do both
Increase the size of congress and limit how long they can serve

NO ONE SHOULD BE IN THE SAME JOB 25 plus years. NO ONE.

 

[paindonthurt]

1) one issue bills (no more throwing in stupid pork to pay for a bridge/road in some state in a bill that has nothing to do with bridges or roads),
2) once elected you can't own individual stocks (you can invest in funds but not individual stocks),

This is a no brainer. And whatever fund you invest in should be made public within 14 days. That’s simple to do.

3) lobbyists can only meet with committees and in front of congress (no more individual meetings/dealings, and

Like this but how do you control it?

4) finally, the one that will never happen but needs to, no more political parties (it's become a team sport and half of each party doesn't even believe in what they are voting for but do it anyway because they are on that team). It's not time for third party, it's time for no parties.

Z

 

[patdog]

Im not a fan of telling people who they cannot pick as their representative. And with our two party system, it can often just be changing a name, but nothing else.

Want an amendment that would make a difference? "There shall not be less than one Representative for every 250,000 people"

One major flaw in our Constitution is that it sets a maximum size for the House - one Representative for every 30,000 persons - it failed to set a minimum number, simply trusting Congress to grow with every census.

The original First Amendment proposed by Madison and passed by Congress provided a mathematical formula for Congress to grow, but the Amendment submitted to the States contained a clerical error and was never ratified.

For no good reason, Congress has stayed at the same size for over 100 years, with the only growth coming when new states were added. As a result, our individual voices in Congress get diluted year after year.

We should have over 1500 Congressmen by now. Maybe more. I would settle for my Amendment, which would put us at about 1375 Congressmen.

This would solve so many problems with our government.

1500 congressmen would be a nightmare. And I hate to tell you, but our voices would be just as diluted then as they are now. While our congressman would represent only about 1/3 as many people as today, he's be one of 1500 rather than one of 435.

 

[pseudonym]

It will never happen.

I would agree if amendments could only originate in Congress (like all ratified amendments to this point), but the convention of states route makes it possible. It's just a matter of will.

 

[patdog]

I love chewy chocolate chip cookies. So I don’t keep any around the house otherwise I’d be fat as 17.

I'm right there with you on this.

 

[ckDOG]

Im not a fan of telling people who they cannot pick as their representative. And with our two party system, it can often just be changing a name, but nothing else.

Want an amendment that would make a difference? "There shall not be less than one Representative for every 250,000 people"

One major flaw in our Constitution is that it sets a maximum size for the House - one Representative for every 30,000 persons - it failed to set a minimum number, simply trusting Congress to grow with every census.

The original First Amendment proposed by Madison and passed by Congress provided a mathematical formula for Congress to grow, but the Amendment submitted to the States contained a clerical error and was never ratified.

For no good reason, Congress has stayed at the same size for over 100 years, with the only growth coming when new states were added. As a result, our individual voices in Congress get diluted year after year.

We should have over 1500 Congressmen by now. Maybe more. I would settle for my Amendment, which would put us at about 1375 Congressmen.

This would solve so many problems with our government.

Yep. Easier for constituents to influence/monitor their representation at the 30k ratio. On the lobbying side, it makes it tougher to influence policy by having to work a higher rep count. Reps could, in theory, spend more time thinking about policy than thinking about fundraising having to cover a smaller area/population for reelection.

Of course, garbage in garbage out. It's up to us to send decent people to Washington regardless of policy. We tend to choose poorly too often.

 

[paindonthurt]

Of course, garbage in garbage out. It's up to us to send decent people to Washington regardless of policy. We tend to choose poorly too often.

Well some of us are in the business of saving others from their mistakes so let’s legislate this out too!

 

[Dawgzilla2]

1500 congressmen would be a nightmare. And I hate to tell you, but our voices would be just as diluted then as they are now. While our congressman would represent only about 1/3 as many people as today, he's be one of 1500 rather than one of 435.

Obviously, in a Democratic form of government, your indivisual voice has less power as the population grows. But your Representative in Congress should be someone you can legitimately communicate with to express your views.

I kind of picked 250,000 out of my ***. I wouldn't mind a smaller number. Your Congressman should be a member of your community, and someone who needs to earn every vote. If you have a Congressman who will listen to you, you have a voice, even if thstbis just 1/1500 of Congress.

 

[pseudonym]

I think we have a lot of capable candidates, qualified candidates. The issue is the smart ones refuse to get involved because of how dirty it is or they do not have the backing to take down a lifetime congressman with lobbyist backing.

Term limits would make short stints of service by the highest quality members of our society more common. Now, you have to be willing to try to unseat a lifer (unlikely). And even if you can win, without term limits, you are likely to become a lifer yourself.

Congress should be a revolving door of high-quality members of society who serve and then get back to their professional lives. The career politician track attracts the lowest common denominator of society.

 

[pseudonym]

That will give even more power to unelected staffers whose names we never even know. It will also make the graft even worse because the elected ones will have less time in office to make their money. Beware of the law of unintended consequences.

Are you in favor of term limits on the president? Or would you be okay with Trump III (or Obama III)?

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

I think there is an unintended consequence on term limits. Washington might already be run this way, but term limits can make it worse. My concern would be that the amount of puppet candidates would increase. The positions would be actually run by the machine and we would have even more autopen governance. With a congressman or senator staying in place they individually own the power. They are subject to the electorate since they are never lame ducks. If they are periodically forced out, the machine has the power by putting up new candidates.

There should be stricter rules on public servants and prosecute those that break those rules.

 

[L4Dawg]

The only way Mississippi gets any political power is through seniority. Term limits gives too much power to larger States.

Another reason to say no.

 

[L4Dawg]

This is basically an argument for government pork.

Ones man's pork is another's essential service.

 

[patdog]

I think there is an unintended consequence on term limits. Washington might already be run this way, but term limits can make it worse. My concern would be that the amount of puppet candidates would increase. The positions would be actually run by the machine and we would have even more autopen governance. With a congressman or senator staying in place they individually own the power. They are subject to the electorate since they are never lame ducks. If they are periodically forced out, the machine has the power by putting up new candidates.

Problem with no term limits is, it's political suicide to run against an incumbent in a primary, except maybe if it's a 1st term incumbent. And most districts are so gerrymandered the "other" party has zero chance of winning in the general election. So we get lifetime congressmen.

 

[pseudonym]

This, and a balanced budget mandate would change America for the better. Something like 6 terms in the House and you go home and 3 terms in the Senate and you go home. You might run out of capable, qualified candidates to replace them, though. We came within a snail's hair of ending up with an idiot in office for MS District 3 a few years back. That guy ended up burning down a satanic temple altar at the Iowa Crapitol and got himself charged with a hate crime.

I would go with even stricter limits (mapping the presidential limits to Congress):

• House - (2 full terms or 5 years max)
• Senate - (2 full terms or 15 years max)

That would still allow someone to spend 16 years in Congress.

I don't believe you would run out of capable, qualified candidates. Imposing term limits would massively increase the talent pool.

There are 206 million people in the US between the ages of 25 and 74. If we only took from the top 1% of that population, we could fill 535 seats and turn it completely over 3,850 times before we ran out of people.

 

[L4Dawg]

Are you in favor of term limits on the president? Or would you be okay with Trump III (or Obama III)?

The executive branch is a different animal, especially since Congress has ceded so much power to it since WWII. If anything the President should only get one term...as things stand. Go back to what it was prior to WWI, then yes I'd be fine with no term limits.

 

[pseudonym]

They all turn to criminals once they get there. Why make more criminals?

The argument is that being in an elected position for an unlimited amount of time increases the corruption. The accumulation of power, reputation, and money through long terms in office increases the incentives for corruption.

Term limits wouldn't end all corruption, but they could drastically decrease it.

 

[dudehead]

We get the government that we buy. That is why we get bills like the BBB where the wealthiest get the benefits (because they pay the most in taxes and political contributions), and the poorest get the least (because they pay the least). Change the link between money and political power, then you might see change.

Today, our Congress men and women spend more time raising money than work as a legislator.

 

[BulldogBlitz]

I appreciate the dutiful dedication it takes to be a senator into their 90s.

Need sarcasterisks?

 

[Darryl Steight]

Are you in favor of term limits on the president? Or would you be okay with Trump III (or Obama III)?

This was going to be my point. How is it universally agreed upon that we don't want a potential dictator to serve more than 8 years in the White House, but we're okay with 500 other lawmakers being able to be in their elected office for life?

 

[pseudonym]

I would go with even stricter limits (mapping the presidential limits to Congress):

• House - (2 full terms or 5 years max)
• Senate - (2 full terms or 15 years max)

That would still allow someone to spend 16 years in Congress.

I don't believe you would run out of capable, qualified candidates. Imposing term limits would massively increase the talent pool.

There are 206 million people in the US between the ages of 25 and 74. If we only took from the top 1% of that population, we could fill 535 seats and turn it completely over 3,850 times before we ran out of people.

Just to name a few who would be on the chopping block, assuming the above term limits:

Mitch McConnell
Chuck Schumer
Lindsey Graham
Bernie Sanders
Rand Paul
Mike Lee
Tim Scott
Elizabeth Warren
Ted Cruz
Cory Booker
Nancy Pelosi
Maxine Waters
Thomas Massie
Rashida Tlaib
Ilhan Omar
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Lauren Boebert
Marjorie Taylor Greene

 

[FrontRangeDawg]

Term limits would make short stints of service by the highest quality members of our society more common. Now, you have to be willing to try to unseat a lifer (unlikely). And even if you can win, without term limits, you are likely to become a lifer yourself.

Congress should be a revolving door of high-quality members of society who serve and then get back to their professional lives. The career politician track attracts the lowest common denominator of society.

Couldn't have said it better. Whether it's true or not, I look at every modern national political figure as a grifter first, self-promoter second, and then maybe a policy-maker at distant third. Get in, get personally enriched, and get reelected/your next media gig.

 

[paindonthurt]

Remove age minimum and institute age maximum. Voting age to Social Security age. Once you hit social security age - special ballot for rest of your term.

Will never happen in this iteration of the US, but should be the goal.

Career politicians aren't an awful concept. Lifetime politicians are.

We really need the weak men made from the good times of the 40s/50s to release their grip before they make these times even more worse than they're threatening. Dubya is younger than the last two presidents ffs. He just turned 79.

The weak men were mostly born after 1970.

 

[FrontRangeDawg]

The weak men were mostly born after 1970.

I don't know why you think this is the case. Gen X'ers are much more mentally and emotionally "tough" than Boomers. Boomers are scared of things on cable news.

Boomers had the benefit of living through one of the longest periods of relative peace and steady economic prosperity (with the exception of the '80 recession and Volcker shock) in American history. Most middle to upper middle class Americans avoided Vietnam. They were the last generation to broadly earn more than their parents over lifetime.

Gen X'ers came of age in a substantially worse economic environment than Boomers (at least 3 major recessions since 1990 with flatter earnings compared to costs).

Also, those Boomers failed to adequately plan for their own aging and demise, leaving Gen X'ers to raise their kids and sunset their parents. There are hundreds of articles and profiles on this phenomenon, and I know several of my friends who are in this situation right now.

Those who have been successful feel like their success is entirely of their own doing, seemingly unaware of the conditions that supported them. Boomers were born on 3rd base and almost positive they've been screwed by life. It's something to see.

ETA- I know plenty of wonderful Baby Boomers. If you're a Boomer, I'm sure you're one of them. But I work in finance and my clients who are 55 and younger are supporting more people, saving more and thinking about the future much more comprehensively then 55+. If you say the word "death" to a Boomer, they look at you like you're crazy.

 

[preacher_dawg]

Not sure if this has been posted yet because I really don't want to take the time to read through all the replies, but more accountability of how they make their money while in congress, such as insider trading, money from lobbies, etc.

 

[paindonthurt]

I don't know why you think this is the case. Gen X'ers are much more mentally and emotionally "tough" than Boomers. Boomers are scared of things on cable news.

Boomers had the benefit of living through one of the longest periods of relative peace and steady economic prosperity (with the exception of the '80 recession and Volcker shock) in American history. Most middle to upper middle class Americans avoided Vietnam. They were the last generation to broadly earn more than their parents over lifetime.

Gen X'ers came of age in a substantially worse economic environment than Boomers (at least 3 major recessions since 1990 with flatter earnings compared to costs).

Also, those Boomers failed to adequately plan for their own aging and demise, leaving Gen X'ers to raise their kids and sunset their parents. There are hundreds of articles and profiles on this phenomenon, and I know several of my friends who are in this situation right now.

Those who have been successful feel like their success is entirely of their own doing, seemingly unaware of the conditions that supported them. Boomers were born on 3rd base and almost positive they've been screwed by life. It's something to see.

ETA- I know plenty of wonderful Baby Boomers. If you're a Boomer, I'm sure you're one of them. But I work in finance and my clients who are 55 and younger are supporting more people, saving more and thinking about the future much more comprehensively then 55+. If you say the word "death" to a Boomer, they look at you like you're crazy.

I'm more referring to the kids today who are in that 18 to 30 range that everyone talks about regarding their work ethic.

I'm 43. Born in 1982. Not a boomer.

But most boomers i know aren't a bunch of pu$$ies.

 

[FrontRangeDawg]

I'm more referring to the kids today who are in that 18 to 30 range that everyone talks about regarding their work ethic.

I'm 43. Born in 1982. Not a boomer.

But most boomers i know aren't a bunch of pu$$ies.

I've got teenagers and young adults, so I definitely have questions about that generation, but I suspect that's how everyone feels about 18-30 year olds until proven otherwise!

 

[T-TownDawgg]

Just to name a few who would be on the chopping block, assuming the above term limits:

Mitch McConnell
Chuck Schumer
Lindsey Graham
Bernie Sanders
Rand Paul
Mike Lee
Tim Scott
Elizabeth Warren
Ted Cruz
Cory Booker
Nancy Pelosi
Maxine Waters
Thomas Massie
Rashida Tlaib
Ilhan Omar
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Lauren Boebert
Marjorie Taylor Greene

In the spirit of bipartisan-ship....

What a sad list of human filth.

 

[DT4248]

I'm more referring to the kids today who are in that 18 to 30 range that everyone talks about regarding their work ethic.

I'm 43. Born in 1982. Not a boomer.

But most boomers i know aren't a bunch of pu$$ies.

Nah Gen Z is the ones seeing what they're going to inherit the next 50 years and starting to advocate for what they're want.

Not accepting something because "that's how it always is" is NOT an entitled *****. It's what strong people do.

Bending over and just taking it is what a ***** does.

 

[paindonthurt]

Nah Gen Z is the ones seeing what they're going to inherit the next 50 years and starting to advocate for what they're want.

Not accepting something because "that's how it always is" is NOT an entitled *****. It's what strong people do.

Bending over and just taking it is what a ***** does.

Hahaha cute

 

[TTKADawg]

Sorry is that really a glimpse of hope?

 

[paindonthurt]

Sorry is that really a glimpse of hope?

No it’s a glimmer

 

[mstateglfr]

Politics have change, anything and everything we use to think was impossible is now possible. Hate him or like him we have to give credit to Trump. He has changed 70 years of precedence.

A bunch of red states pushing for legislative term limits is due to a Republican president being in office?

 

[GloryDawg]

A bunch of red states pushing for legislative term limits is due to a Republican president being in office?

Come on this has nothing to do with a President who is limited to a max 10 years or two full terms.

 

[mstateglfr]

Come on this has nothing to do with a President who is limited to a max 10 years or two full terms.

- You said we have to give credit to Trump.
- That sounded odd to me, so I posted a clarifying question to you.
- You now just responded with 'this has nothing to do with a President(Trump).'

What is happening here? I am not arguing with you, I am straight up confused as to what your post in the beginning of this thread meant, if it wasnt crediting Trump for this push to change.

@pseudonym - This is the single most impactful thing we could do to fix improve Washington.

@GloryDawg - Congress isn’t going to put limits on itself. It will have to be a convention of the states.
Politics have change, anything and everything we use to think was impossible is now possible. Hate him or like him we have to give credit to Trump. He has changed 70 years of precedence.

 

[GloryDawg]

- You said we have to give credit to Trump.
- That sounded odd to me, so I posted a clarifying question to you.
- You now just responded with 'this has nothing to do with a President(Trump).'

What is happening here? I am not arguing with you, I am straight up confused as to what your post in the beginning of this thread meant, if it wasnt crediting Trump for this push to change.

I used to think getting a 2/3 of the states to call for a Convention was impossible but after everything thrown at Trump and still get elected anything is now possible. You need to learn to comprehend a little better and stop being so narrow minded.

 

[mstateglfr]

I used to think getting a 2/3 of the states to call for a Convention was impossible but after everything thrown at Trump and still get elected anything is now possible. You need to learn to comprehend a little better and stop being so narrow minded.

Gotcha.
Your comment could also apply if it meant 'states have seen what can happen when power is centralized under POTUS over this last decade, due to state representation ceding power, so limiting terms for representatives will reduce the chance their re-election can be threatened because many will be term limited already.'
When people cant have their job held over their head, they more often vote differently.

 

[paindonthurt]

Gotcha.
Your comment could also apply if it meant 'states have seen what can happen when power is centralized under POTUS over this last decade, due to state representation ceding power, so limiting terms for representatives will reduce the chance their re-election can be threatened because many will be term limited already.'
When people cant have their job held over their head, they more often vote differently.

Trump didn’t start this by any stretch.

and he isn’t the worst offender by any stretch.

He’s just playing by the rules of people before him.

Im sure you’ll write a thesis explaining how I’m wrong but it will be rabble, rabble, rabble, etc. so save us all the 17ing bandwidth.

 

[mstateglfr]

Trump didn’t start this by any stretch.
and he isn’t the worst offender by any stretch.
He’s just playing by the rules of people before him.
Im sure you’ll write a thesis explaining how I’m wrong but it will be rabble, rabble, rabble, etc. so save us all the 17ing bandwidth.

I agree he didnt start the concept of EOs.
I agree he isnt the worst 'offender'.

The fact that he didnt start them and hasnt signed the most has nothing to do with my comments.

You constantly cry about how centralized power has become, yet you dismissed my post by arguing that 'Trump didnt start it and isnt the worst!'.

 

[paindonthurt]

I agree he didnt start the concept of EOs.
I agree he isnt the worst 'offender'.

The fact that he didnt start them and hasnt signed the most has nothing to do with my comments.

You constantly cry about how centralized power has become, yet you dismissed my post by arguing that 'Trump didnt start it and isnt the worst!'.

Oh i want you to talk about decentralized government. I just wanna hear you say it all the time.

And you can flat out lie all you want. Your post made it look like you were talking about trump and you did that on purpose (last decade). Now i'll hear about how Obama and Joe were in the last decade yada yada yada. We see you glf terd.