|
Amused to Death posted:Actually everyone from across the political spectrum in the US thinks term limits is a good idea with somewhat more Republicans than Democrats with little variation between age groups Not only do more Republicans and "Independents" (LOL) support term limits, the only party to actually propose this idea is the GOP.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:
So every election would automatically cost billions of dollars just in paying the electorate. I mean I've seen a lot of terrible ideas in d and d but this is the worst in a while. e: hundreds of billions to be specific. tsa fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Then half the body would half-rear end their way through the term. Uh what? That's not what government is supposed to do? Might be what you want it to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Hey now, I support replacement of the 17th amendment (I'd prefer to see Senate elections handled by professional elector pool system in a manner similar to jury duty, where the people pegged are pulled at random from the voter pools and paid well for their service, but actually expected to research the candidates before voting), and I don't think I'm that stupid. If you're going to do this weirdness just abolish the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
I always thought a lottery system would be good for HoR. You'd actually get a cross section of citizens instead of people who could afford to run. Give them housing and a decent salary during their term and make it so that whatever job they might hold had to be held for them (obviously it could be filled while the person was in office). You'd probably have to extend the term to 4 years to account for the learning curve, and maybe have a 6-month period before they took office when they were instructed on the parliamentary procedures and rules. Naturally you'd end up with some actual idiots (but we have that now, like the R congressman who asked lobbyists to tell him how to do his job) but it would truly be more representative of the population as a whole. Of course, this would only work if our educational system wasn't total dogshit so...yeah.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
AlternateNu posted:Because there is a tipping point in the power balance where the negative aspects of allowing a single person to be entrenched in an executive position outweighs the benefits of their experience. Like was said earlier in the thread, that is something somewhat unique to Executives since you more-or-less have a single person running 1/3 of the entire government. Please explain how the US would've been better off if FDR was only in office for two terms. The Presidency shouldn't be term limited. If conservatives want to vote for Regan Joementum posted:The Democratic candidate for Governor in South Carolina has said they should take down the Confederate flag on the State House grounds and replace it with the American flag. Even better: now when Haley wins it can be used to reinforce the flag's presence because The People of South Carolina Have Spoken. It's amazing Democrats are so loving bad at politics compared to Republicans. GlyphGryph posted:Hey now, I support replacement of the 17th amendment (I'd prefer to see Senate elections handled by professional elector pool system in a manner similar to jury duty, where the people pegged are pulled at random from the voter pools and paid well for their service, but actually expected to research the candidates before voting), and I don't think I'm that stupid. Lobbyists reading your (terrible) idea are creaming themselves at the idea of random shmucks being sent off to Congress. There would be people in congress who make Sarah Palin look intelligent and to say they'd be corrupted more easily than the current system is putting it mildly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
tsa posted:So every election would automatically cost billions of dollars just in paying the electorate. I mean I've seen a lot of terrible ideas in d and d but this is the worst in a while. I'd like to believe the people saying stuff like this aren't actually that loving dense, so I'm just going to assume I I explained it poorly. First, keep in mind that elections already cost billions and billions of dollars per year. Democracy can get expensive! But even then, assuming a reasonably sized elector pool of 50 people per state per senator (and it probably doesn't need to be that large except for the largest states), so 100 people. Assume 50k in compensation. That's $5 million spent per state, or $250 million for every senate election across the entire country, assuming they all happen at the same time (and they don't, so it would be significantly less than that). Then consider that we wouldn't be running traditional campaigns, so would probably save a chunk of what we spend on public financing for Senate candidates. Hardly hundreds of billions of dollars. Where the gently caress did you even pull that number from? Evil Fluffy posted:Lobbyists reading your (terrible) idea are creaming themselves at the idea of random shmucks being sent off to Congress. There would be people in congress who make Sarah Palin look intelligent and to say they'd be corrupted more easily than the current system is putting it mildly. Okay, clearly it was me, since everyone seems to have independently come up with an equally terrible but completely unrelated interpretation of what I said, none of which seem to have anything to do with what I actually meant. Consider me suitably chastised for my posting skills. But I'd like to at least try to clarify what I actually meant: Randomly selected pool of electors vote in the actual election, probably between 20 and a hundred. They are paid well for their 2 months or so of service, where they are expected to research and communicate and deliver a vote for the best candidate. Like jury pools, legal protections for this group abound. Everything else is per normal. (You'd probably need some custom tailored anti-corruption laws on top of what we've already got to keep things clean, admittedly) Desired effect: Senators spend less time complaining. Are more highly rewarded for actual performance thanks to an electorate that is suitable equipped to understand what they've actually done, and they have the opportunity to interact with them all personally. The education of the individual voters about the issues and candidates ends up very high compared to now. Things that will NOT happen: Random schmucks being sent off to the senate (Well, this already happens, see Iowa, but I mean this doesn't seem like it would make it make it any more likely) Hundreds of billions of dollars being paid to whoever Whatever SirKibbles thought I meant, I was just honestly confused by that one GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
i'd vote for obama again if i could
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I'd like to believe the people saying stuff like this aren't actually that loving dense, so I'm just going to assume I I explained it poorly. This seems like a very byzantine and anti-democratic solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:i'd vote for obama again if i could The right-wing freakout over a black dude being president is certainly hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
AmiYumi posted:What about age limits, rather than term limits? Bonus points if it's pegged to the average life expectancy of a black male in their district. Possibly unconstitutional (Murgia suggests it would be okay, but Murgia didn't have lawyers paid by Congressmen fighting the law.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:This seems like a very byzantine and anti-democratic solution to a problem that doesn't exist. There's nothing particularly anti-democratic about it in any realistic way (one may argue it's ideologically impure, but practically it's pretty much the same), and if you're arguing that we don't have a problem with the results of our elections system producing incompetent politicians and/or politicians who merely need to appeal to popular sentiment since most people will never look at the results of their actual actions, well, that's certainly a valid opinion, but I'm not sure if many people here would agree with it... Especially since the Senate is supposed to be the respectable, institutional, responsible House of Congress, and I think this would strengthen it in a lot of ways. Let the HoR represent the teaming uninformed opinions of the masses, and the Senate be the result of a representative sample of that population given the time, opportunity, and incentive to make the best possible informed choices. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Whatever SirKibbles thought I meant, I was just honestly confused by that one My point being it'd be expensive so no way they get paid a decent amount compared to what they can just work. It's the same reason people don't do jury duty if they can get out of it. Plus you have the same issue you'd have for term limits but worse. Basically: Berke Negri posted:This seems like a very byzantine and anti-democratic solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:i'd vote for obama again if i could You can when Michelle runs in 8 years 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:Uh what? That's not what government is supposed to do? Might be what you want it to do. Please define what you think the role of government is, keeping in mind that as a matter of practical fact the government does act as the agency of last resort to issues that are largely no profitable but necessary, and that there are governments other than the american model that your definition would need to encompass Also if you are going to try and say something like "protect your rights" you will need to define where rights come from and why
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Scrap the Constitution and establish Plato's Republic. I call Philosopher King.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:My point being it'd be expensive so no way they get paid a decent amount compared to what they can just work. It's the same reason people don't do jury duty if they can get out of it. Plus you have the same issue you'd have for term limits but worse. Basically: Why would politicians not want them paid well? Do you think they would want it limited to the poors who don't have better alternatives? The incentives don't line up here: Politicians would want the position paid well enough that the middle and upper middle class have at least some say in it. Not to say they wouldn't get super greedy and make them work for free or some bullshit, but it's hardly a given. In what possible way would it have anything approaching the same problem as term limits? If anything, it would be the exact opposite. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Scrap the Constitution and establish Plato's Republic. But there are no sweets in the Republic 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Amergin posted:If the issue with term limits is that it makes congressional slots rotate too quickly and therefore pushes power towards lobby groups and the parties, why not set the term limits on the high end to prevent zombies from holding office?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Please define what you think the role of government is, keeping in mind that as a matter of practical fact the government does act as the agency of last resort to issues that are largely no profitable but necessary, and that there are governments other than the american model that your definition would need to encompass Definitely more than poo poo I don't want to do. It's definitely a philosophical question in retrospect in might be objective. So this is pointless. GlyphGryph posted:Why would politicians not want them paid well? Do you think they would want it limited to the poors who don't have better alternatives? The incentives don't line up here: Politicians would want the position paid well enough that the middle and upper middle class have at least some say in it. Not to say they wouldn't get super greedy and make them work for free or some bullshit, but it's hardly a given. The same reason they don't pay for other poo poo that's super cheap to do? You're applying logic to politicians.Louie Gohmert's existence should stop you from ever doing that. Joementum posted:Scrap the Constitution and establish Plato's Republic. I say we should go with Washingtons bones it's what the Founders would want. SirKibbles fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:The same reason they don't pay for other poo poo that's super cheap to do? You're applying logic to politicians.Louie Gohmert's existence should stop you from ever doing that. This isn't even an argument. They don't pay for other poo poo because they benefit from not doing so, and don't benefit much from doing so. the pay ends up at the point where the benefit outweighs the cost. The incentives for such a jury structure would naturally lead to higher pay than other similar positions, because the wealthy will sure as gently caress want their say and those who are close to them economically to have real pull, and not leave the decisions up to the poors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
resurgam40 posted:... Yeah, the Confederate flag is an abysmal symbol of treason, but that seems like a... decidedly short-sighted thing to do for a politician of that particular area to do. To be fair, I don't think Sheheen is really going to win, but I think most of the types who are crazy about the flag were going to vote for Haley even if Jesus came down and annoited Sheheen as his vicar on earth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:Definitely more than poo poo I don't want to do. It's definitely a philosophical question in retrospect in might be objective. So this is pointless. Please go tour a municipal waste water facility and gain more perspective. This goes for anyone who hasn't been to one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:This isn't even an argument. They don't pay for other poo poo because they benefit from not doing so, and don't benefit much from doing so. the pay ends up at the point where the benefit outweighs the cost. It is like this idea sounds worse the more you describe it. What is the issue with popular statewide election of senators by the general electorate again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:This isn't even an argument. They don't pay for other poo poo because they benefit from not doing so, and don't benefit much from doing so. the pay ends up at the point where the benefit outweighs the cost. But the current system already does that and doesn't have the risk of them getting hosed by the working class/poor/lower middle why would they change it? This is not even going into the fact that you'd have to spend time teaching people how this works and restructuring our entire lobbying system otherwise it just became way easier to bribe people,plus it still has all the problem that term limits have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:plus it still has all the problem that term limits have. Name one. (For others: I'm not saying it doesn't have issues, every system including the one right now has issues, I'm just not convinced by his unsupported statements that it has "all the issues term limits have", which seems like bullshit) Berke Negri posted:It is like this idea sounds worse the more you describe it. What is the issue with popular statewide election of senators by the general electorate again? Again, obviously if you like the Senate we have now and are happy with the Senators and think they're the best guys for the job, you've got no incentive to even consider other options. If that you're starting point, there's probably nothing I'd be able to say to convince you otherwise. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Amergin posted:If the issue with term limits is that it makes congressional slots rotate too quickly and therefore pushes power towards lobby groups and the parties, why not set the term limits on the high end to prevent zombies from holding office? I actually was for 4 terms for senators and 12 for the house, you see Amergin its great that we can find common ground. SubponticatePoster posted:I always thought a lottery system would be good for HoR. You'd actually get a cross section of citizens instead of people who could afford to run. Give them housing and a decent salary during their term and make it so that whatever job they might hold had to be held for them (obviously it could be filled while the person was in office). You'd probably have to extend the term to 4 years to account for the learning curve, and maybe have a 6-month period before they took office when they were instructed on the parliamentary procedures and rules. Naturally you'd end up with some actual idiots (but we have that now, like the R congressman who asked lobbyists to tell him how to do his job) but it would truly be more representative of the population as a whole. I really think they should expand the numbers of house members tied to states to 600, and then add 200 national house members that would be a representative breakdown of peoples political views. With a barrier of entry of 2 percent. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
The main problem with the Senate is that it exists. Abolishing it is the only acceptable reform. The main problem with the House is that there are too few representatives. Restore the rep:constituent ratio so that theres more interaction between them. I want my US Rep campaigning door to door.  Neither of those is as important or would do as much as fixing money and FPTP voting. Good luck getting any of these.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Family Values posted:The main problem with the Senate is that it exists. Abolishing it is the only acceptable reform. This seems a lot stupider than anything I've said. The House as the sole legislative body seems like it would be a nightmare, and I fail to see how making it even larger and more unwieldy would in any way support better governance, rather than turning it into an even bigger clusterfuck (Not that I don't think it has problems that could do with being fixed, I just don't see what problems THAT would fix). GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:This seems a lot stupider than anything I've said. The House as the sole legislative body seems like it would be a nightmare. Better than having the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Family Values posted:The main problem with the Senate is that it exists. Abolishing it is the only acceptable reform.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Better than having the Senate. How do you figure? Are the legislative efforts of the House really that superior to equivalent legislative efforts drafted in the Senate? Now, vastly increasing the size of the house, that seems like it would share a lot of the problems of Term Limits (vesting the real power in the part bureaucracy rather than the elected individuals)
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Is there any practical reason that the house is being kept to its current size? Do they just not want to rebuild the building to have more offices and stuff? Changing the number is an opportunity for political manipulation and neither side is confident enough that they'll win out to give it a try when they are in charge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Changing the number is an opportunity for political manipulation and neither side is confident enough that they'll win out to give it a try when they are in charge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Is there any practical reason that the house is being kept to its current size? Do they just not want to rebuild the building to have more offices and stuff? To my understanding they are required to vote in person and the House is out of room to add more seats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:How do you figure? Are the legislative efforts of the House really that superior to equivalent legislative efforts drafted in the Senate? The senate is undeniably and deliberately kept in favor of small population states, that is, a person voting in a small population state has way more voting power than someone voting in a large population state. This is poo poo, and was only there in the first place to placate such states.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:
Nah, I understood what you meant, but that's still a horrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:The senate is undeniably and deliberately kept in favor of small population states, that is, a person voting in a small population state has way more voting power than someone voting in a large population state. This is poo poo, and was only there in the first place to placate such states. Why is this poo poo? What negative effects has this had on the quality of government? Do you think the Senate drafts worse legislation than the House? What actual (rather than emotional "it feels wrong!") problems do you think this would fix? mlmp08 posted:Nah, I understood what you meant, but that's still a horrible idea. That's fine, I'm sure I've got plenty of opinions plenty of people think are horrible, and at least some of them probably are, and hopefully they'll change if so. It just irked me that so many people weren't arguing that the thing I said was horrible so much as arguing as some completely different thing was horrible and thus I was wrong. I think I may have some fundamental disagreements with others here about what a government is for and what purpose a republic/democratic system is meant to serve. I don't think I'm the only one though, considering the last few pages, and I'm wondering if there's anything approaching a consensus even here. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Please explain how the US would've been better off if FDR was only in office for two terms. I'm not saying that some potential has not been wasted (or would have been wasted prior to the issuance of term limits), but really, it comes down to me being a cynical loving bastard. I don't trust the electorate on pretty much any matter as important as choosing the national Executive, and if nothing else, studies have shown us time and again that people do worse at decision making when too many choices are available. So, why not minimize the issue by eliminating the soothing comfort of blindly voting for incumbency.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Why is this poo poo? What negative effects has this had on the quality of government? Do you think the Senate drafts worse legislation than the House? What actual (rather than emotional "it feels wrong!") problems do you think this would fix? I think the Senate sure drafts less effective legislation, yes; worse? Depends on who's controlling which half of Congress, obviously, but a House and a Senate controlled by the same party is going to have less effective legislation because of the Senate, not more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:36
|
|