HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Americans Call for Term L...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:05 PM

 

Americans Call for Term Limits, End to Electoral College

Source: Gallup

PRINCETON, NJ -- Even after the 2012 election in which Americans re-elected most of the sitting members of the U.S. House and Senate -- as is typical in national elections -- three-quarters of Americans say that, given the opportunity, they would vote "for" term limits for members of both houses of Congress.

Republicans and independents are slightly more likely than Democrats to favor term limits; nevertheless, the vast majority of all party groups agree on the issue. Further, Gallup finds no generational differences in support for the proposal.

These findings, from Gallup Daily tracking conducted Jan. 8-9, are similar to those from 1994 to 1996 Gallup polls, in which between two-thirds and three-quarters of Americans said they would vote for a constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms that members of Congress and the U.S. Senate can serve.

Americans are nearly as open to major electoral reform when it comes to doing away with the Electoral College. Sixty-three percent would abolish this unique, but sometimes controversial, mechanism for electing presidents that was devised by the framers of the Constitution. While constitutional and statutory revisions have been made to the Electoral College since the nation's founding, numerous efforts to abolish it over the last 200+ years have met with little success.

Read more: http://www.gallup.com/poll/159881/americans-call-term-limits-end-electoral-college.aspx



67 replies, 7133 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 67 replies Author Time Post
Reply Americans Call for Term Limits, End to Electoral College (Original post)
UnrepentantLiberal Jan 2013 OP
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #1
Faygo Kid Jan 2013 #2
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #3
Scuba Jan 2013 #13
Faygo Kid Jan 2013 #15
Scuba Jan 2013 #20
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #22
Scuba Jan 2013 #24
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #30
Scuba Jan 2013 #34
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #36
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #37
Scuba Jan 2013 #40
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #51
Revanchist Jan 2013 #49
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #50
Revanchist Jan 2013 #53
classykaren Jan 2013 #23
Scuba Jan 2013 #26
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #27
yurbud Jan 2013 #45
xxqqqzme Jan 2013 #62
Gormy Cuss Jan 2013 #63
MADem Jan 2013 #47
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #59
SHRED Jan 2013 #60
Great Caesars Ghost Jan 2013 #61
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #4
pasto76 Jan 2013 #39
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #42
ck4829 Jan 2013 #5
Volaris Jan 2013 #31
jberryhill Jan 2013 #6
Volaris Jan 2013 #32
sofa king Jan 2013 #57
Ed Suspicious Jan 2013 #7
Ed Suspicious Jan 2013 #8
yurbud Jan 2013 #44
Pyrzqxgl Jan 2013 #9
padruig Jan 2013 #10
tabasco Jan 2013 #14
former9thward Jan 2013 #38
Chef Eric Jan 2013 #17
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #29
LovingA2andMI Jan 2013 #43
MADem Jan 2013 #48
dsc Jan 2013 #11
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #16
Midwestern Democrat Jan 2013 #65
stultusporcos Jan 2013 #12
Comrade_McKenzie Jan 2013 #18
totodeinhere Jan 2013 #58
pam4water Jan 2013 #19
Spryguy Jan 2013 #21
jberryhill Jan 2013 #35
Hard Assets Jan 2013 #25
rhett o rick Jan 2013 #28
Nine Jan 2013 #55
NorthCarolina Jan 2013 #33
24601 Jan 2013 #41
KansDem Jan 2013 #46
ronnie624 Jan 2013 #52
suston96 Jan 2013 #54
socialist_n_TN Jan 2013 #56
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #64
NorthCarolina Jan 2013 #66
Midwestern Democrat Jan 2013 #67

Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:09 PM

1. The only problem I have with term-limits is ...

they give MORE power to unelected bureaucrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:10 PM

2. +1. And especially more power to lobbyists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faygo Kid (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:11 PM

3. Yep. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faygo Kid (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:38 PM

13. If lobbyists help politicians get re-elected, how do term limits give them more power?

Seems the longer these guys are in Congress, the larger their herds of lobbyists.

Starting off clean every so often would limit those herds, would it not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:45 PM

15. They end up writing the legislation and controlling the process.

Many of them are former lawmakers (revolving door). The green legislators are much easier to control than somebody like Barney Frank who understands the processes and the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faygo Kid (Reply #15)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:51 PM

20. That's because our side doesn't have a people's version of ALEC. Why is that?

Why doesn't the Democratic Party have model legislation for protecting voter rights, equal rights, women's rights, etc???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:07 PM

22. Great question. Who actually runs the Democratic Party?

And can we count on them to get out the vote in 2014? Or do we rely on organizations like, moveon.org, PDA and Progressive Change Campaign Committee?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:09 PM

24. Sometimes I think the Democratic Party is being run by the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:20 PM

30. I wouldnt go that far, but most likely the same oligarchs that control the Repub party

have a hand in the Democratic Party too. In the last election IMHO outside organizations did as much or more to reelect Pres Obama as the Democratic Party structure. We need to get this straightened out before we have a disaster in 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #30)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:25 PM

34. Obama for America led the Presidential race ...

... at the State level we're only as good as our local party leaders, and there isn't anything coming from the State Party to make those leaders better - no education, no structure, no data support, etc.

I got involved in 2010 after I retired, and I'm very disappointed in the state of party operations. Antiquated methods, inaccurate/outdated data sets and no hint of standard operating procedures.

We've got a new guy in charge in my County, and I'm optimistic about him. But every County shouldn't have to invent the wheel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #34)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:35 PM

36. I dont view Pres Obama as head of the Democratic Party.

I may be wrong. He is far too busy to run the Party. I have worked with my local county Democratic Party and I appreciate what they do, but dont see them as innovative at all. The average age of the active local Democrats is probably 65. Again I appreciate what they do but they arent on Facebook, Twitter, etc. We need a strong national Democratic Party that helps HOR and Senate races for states that need the help. We also need a think tank writing legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #34)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:46 PM

37. This may be the answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #37)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:55 PM

40. Glad to see this, thanks. Still, disappointed to hear Michelle state "what the organization

... will look like will be up to you."

Sounds like we're starting from scratch. Anyway, I registered and will forward. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #40)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:10 AM

51. I understand your consternation. But it may be a good chance to break

away from the standard elitist run organization. I am currently studying the Elite Theory which says that all organizations are controlled by an elite few.

IMO - Some times those elite are benevolent and work for the benefit of the organization and some times they work for their own benefit or the benefit of someone else like a sponsoring corporation. Seems to me like the Democratic Party elite are an easy target for corruption via corporate money. Hopefully this organization can maintain immunity. Occupy is the only example I can think of that didnt have an elite few that ran the organization. Their success or lack of, is debatable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 09:42 AM

49. I wouldn't consider that to be the answer

That site seems to be specifically for President Obama's campaign and frankly what is need is a site/organization that will still be going strong in ten years and can function on both a national and state level, if not all the way down to local races. What is needed is not a site tied to one specific candidate but is for the party as a whole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Revanchist (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:03 AM

50. I respectfully recommend you look again. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #50)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:45 AM

53. Ahhh

The page it sent me to was confusing. I did the email/zip thingie and it directed me to a contribution page. Didn't realize the blue bar at the top was a clickie, my bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #20)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:07 PM

23. It is supposed to be the ACLU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to classykaren (Reply #23)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:10 PM

26. Really? Can you provide a citation? I've never heard that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to classykaren (Reply #23)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:11 PM

27. What? The ACLU writes legislation? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:01 PM

45. the lobbyists would have more experience than the legislators they are controlling

when a politician is termed out, the lobbyist who helped put him in office doesn't have to leave--unless the politician takes his job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:34 PM

62. In California

w/ the introduction of term limits for the state legislature - 2 terms for state assembly & senate and elected state offices (Gov, Sec of State, etc.), we now have a constant game of musical chairs. Every 2 terms everyone races for a new chair. In the legislature what we get are people who have absolutely NO idea of how government works or what their jobs are. It was one of the reasons our way out of the economic mess was delayed and made worse by inaction.

The scramble for the next seat also hinders good local candidates from moving up the legislative ladder. The CDP is drowning in aging legislators w/ good bright, candidates w/ no where to go. John Chiang, terrific comptroller, & Debra Bowen, excellent SoS, will be termed out - both excellent in their offices - will be termed out in '14

We had an excellent Attorney General - Bill Lockyear who when termed out was replaced by Jerry Brown. Jerry Brown was a crappy AG. Thankfully, current AG, Kamala Harris is a very good.

There are various proposals to 'fix' the term limits but they less than ideal - currently being bandied about is a total term limit of 12 years in state government.

I see all sorts of problems w/ that too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xxqqqzme (Reply #62)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 04:40 PM

63. It IS a statewide game of musical chairs.

It hasn't made the legislature or state government any better. It has had some unfortunate consequences, as you pointed out.

We already have terms limits. It's called "elections."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faygo Kid (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:20 AM

47. Well, maybe not. The lobbyists would have to "establish a relationship" and by the time they do,

the incumbent is heading out the door.

They would be dealing with a new legislator every (fill in blank) years...

The argument against term limits has to do with leadership in the legislatures. A Harry Reid doesn't just show up, he has to be grown and groomed.

I can see both sides of this issue. I really hate lobbyist influence, and we know how that works (Pssst, buy this stock, e.g.) and "Let's go golfing, of course you'll pay your own fees, but you'll go to a club where they wouldn't let you in the door ordinarily...." or "Please come and 'speak' at our seminar...we will pay your speaker's fee and plane fare..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:06 PM

59. However term limits if done right might actually be worth pursuing. Imagine for example

if they made it so to get elected beyond the limit you need 70% or greater of the vote, not 51%, not 60% but 70% or more.
That should encourage the ones in office to actually try to do as good a job as possible for the majority of people in their districts rather than only those of their own party.
Granted to achieve that we would also need some other reform first such as making a 3rd party say under the DOJ setups the voting districts so as to stop the gerrymandering by both parties but if that was done it might help resolve some of the problems in our government.
The other change that should happen is to the retirement benefits to elected officials, they should be eliminated as someone who seeks an elected office is supposed to be helping the people not helping themselves to the peoples money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:08 PM

60. yep

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:09 PM

61. I don't it matters either way

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:13 PM

4. Well, I guess eliminating the electoral college means

less political ads in my state, so cool beans I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:53 PM

39. which state is that? south dakota or new york?

cause without the EC, sparsely populated states wouldnt get the time of day from candidates. There are more votes in philly and pittsburgh than the entire rest of the state - a microcosm of how it would be nationally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #39)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:03 PM

42. That's exactly what I meant. :)

I should have added a sarcasm tag though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:18 PM

5. There should be non-consecutive terms

Some representatives and senators really do try their best and serve the interests of the American People, not just the wealthy or corporations. Keith Ellison, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, Sherrod Brown, and others come to mind. They should be allowed to serve, then someone else, and if they don't like that replacement, they can vote them back in next election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ck4829 (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:22 PM

31. Yes...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:18 PM

6. "Stop me from voting for that person!"


I don't understand term limits at all.

The only reason we have term limits for the office of president was because the Republicans were pissed off at FDR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:22 PM

32. and yes...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:01 PM

57. It's an admission that our process is corrupt.

An election is a term limit. If politicians grow in power beyond the ability to remove them from office, then a term limit is like bringing a box of band-aids to a shotgun fight. It is a cosmetic treatment of a very serious problem.

I personally really dislike the electoral college, particularly when our insular interior ignorantly blasts its stupidity across the national stage. Over half of our states voted for a pathologically dishonest corporate criminal religious kook who shouldn't be walking around as a free man. Under the current process, had Romney been a hair closer in half a dozen races, the election would have been tossed into Congress and Romney would have won because the voting is done on a modified by-state basis.

As the GOP shrinks in relevance, it is obvious that their efforts are turning back to election-gaming, rather than election-winning, as if we needed another reminder that our electoral process is broken.

Romney did do us one big favor, by delivering a loss that bled over into the Senate elections, making it a very, very costly loss for the corporate interests that drove his campaign. Their investment produced a highly negative result, so they may be less interested in trying to buy elections in the near future.

But they will be back soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:21 PM

7. and in more civil times, seasoned politicians are better at the job of politics.

coalition building and all that crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:22 PM

8. Term limits are the prime cuts of beef for the limited government crowd. No thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:57 PM

44. it's one of the ways they've hog-tied California's state legislatures: since Republicans can't win

majority here, second best is a continuous flow of newbie Democratic legislators.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:23 PM

9. I've already seen good legislators that could have many more years of service turned out in my state

California has term limits in it's state house elections & I think the good people termed out far outway the bad.
The only ones who stay in Sacremento forever are the lobbyists. God forbid that should be the case in Washington DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:27 PM

10. Eliminating the Electoral College


Take care on this ... currently the Republican controlled battleground States are seriously thinking of changing their Electoral College rules whereby they would allocate proportionately to election results.

If these battle ground States had done so for 2012, Mitt Romney would have won the College and President Obama the popular vote.

I think we have bigger fish to fry before we throw out the College altogether.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to padruig (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:41 PM

14. Somebody needs to 'splain that to me.

Obama won by nearly 5 million votes.

Pukes are simpleminded dipshits. In a hypothetical, in which they changed the rules, Obama would still kick their asses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Reply #14)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:49 PM

38. Romney won 222 Congressional districts, Obama 206.

So with an apportioned method as described in this thread Romney would have won in the electoral college.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to padruig (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:48 PM

17. That's a reason why we SHOULD eliminate it.

Eliminating the electoral college would prevent Republicans in mildly blue states from enacting legislation to redirect some of the electoral votes that normally go to Democrats.

It would create an even playing field, and ensure that Republicans have one less dirty trick at their disposal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chef Eric (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:17 PM

29. I agree that we should eliminate the electorial college, but fixing gerrymandering would

take care of the problem of presidential elections plus also help make the HOR more representative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 08:04 PM

43. Exactly

The problem is Gerrymandering more so than the Electoral College in my opinion. That is until the Republican's change the rules again, then I say scrap the Electoral College all together.

Think Progress-Michigan GOP Considering Republican Plan To Rig The Presidential Election

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/18/1468831/michigan-gop-considering-republican-plan-to-rig-the-presidential-election/?mobile=nc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:22 AM

48. I agree--districts should be square as possible, and encompass entire communities.

It is jackass-stupid to divide towns and neighborhoods in order to "keep down" the strength of a voter bloc that the people in charge do not like. It's just wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:30 PM

11. We have term limits

they are called elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #11)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:48 PM

16. Thank you. The conversation needs to begin and end RIGHT THERE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:59 PM

65. Agreed. Maybe we should ask people if they favor term limits for their own jobs or whether they

think there would be no major downside if the highest level of experience in their own organizations was only 8 to 12 years - that might stop this line of conversation pretty quick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:32 PM

12. Get rid of the money in politics which is the real problem

 

Have publically financed elections

Crack down on lobbyists

Make campaign season 2 months long

Congress works at least a 40 hours’ work week and get federal holidays off.

Benefits exact same as what is available to a GS-15 working for the gov.

All they do now is fund raise

We the people have to make them work for US and not corporations and and the 1%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:50 PM

18. Not really sure it would work... but if the majority wants it then who am I to stand in the way? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:43 PM

58. If the majority wants it all they have to do is term limit incumbents at the ballot box.

We don't need this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:50 PM

19. Really Need an end to Gerrymandering and mass private money in politics. The removal of the little

feed back we have now with politicians, i.e. their desire to be re-elected will make thing worse note better. The Republicans love the idea of term limits. They think it will give the an ever better shot at the few districts they left to Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:55 PM

21. Bad idea.

 

Term limits are an awful idea in today's state of affairs. If we didn't have term limits, Bill Clinton would STILL be president I think, unless he stepped down. The economy would be so much better, and there would have liekly been no 9-11 or war in Iraq/Afghanistan.

As for gerrymandering, what's good for the goose can be better for the gander. We just have to time it right when we finally control the House and Senate, and soon I think the Supreme court will be democrat controlled as well. When that happens, I say we gerrymander like crazy to ensure the repukes never hold a congressional seat again!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spryguy (Reply #21)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:34 PM

35. "Bill Clinton would STILL be president"


....after his defeat of Ronald Reagan in '92....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:09 PM

25. I favor 1/5 term limit for all people who are Republicans.

 

And each fifth of his 2 year term, has to validate his performance with his constitutents, to get his full 2 year term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:14 PM

28. Our focus should be on countering gerrymandering and voter suppression. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:50 AM

55. yes

We already have term limits. They're called elections. I'm glad FDR had four terms. I wish Bill Clinton could have had more terms. And if someone like Reagan gets more terms - well, that's the price of democracy isn't it? I can't get behind something that thwarts the will of the electorate - even if the electorate mistakenly thinks it's a good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:23 PM

33. Term limits...not that's something I could get behind. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:00 PM

41. Congress isn't going to propose term limits. We need 2/3 of the states to call for a

Constitutional Convention. Any resulting proposed amendments then need ratification by 3/4 of the states. It can be done without any congressional or presidential participation. Once convened, there are no limits on what a convention can address.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:59 AM

46. This would give the Supreme Court way too much power...

...unless there were term limits on the justices as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:18 AM

52. Might as well forget about reforming our filthy, corporate dominated system.

The only reason for term limits, is to maintain a status quo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:50 AM

54. Term Limits does not "limit" politicians......

Think, folks, before you support something. Term limits abridges the precious voting rights of the individual citizens.

The Twenty Second Amendment was passed by Republican majorities in the US Congress and many state legislatures as an act of vengeance against Franklin Delano Roosevelt who had been elected 4 times to the presidency.

Term limits is not against politicians. It is against voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:33 PM

56. So what? Americans want a lot of things according to polls.......

but that doesn't mean the ruling class will allow them to have what they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 05:04 PM

64. Ted Kennedy served in the Senate for 47 years.

Would we have been better off if he had been kicked out after serving 12 years?

There is already a way to term-limit politicians. Don't re-elect them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #64)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:45 PM

66. You assume that the voters have complete control

however, the fact that GOP Congress critters received fewer total votes than Democrats and yet retained control of the US House, belies that assessment. Term limits are warranted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #66)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:24 AM

67. Term limits aren't going to fix that - those gerrymandered districts will simply replace them

with new Republicans - and each new breed of Republicans somehow manages to be worse than their predecessors - the guys from the '94 revolution were practically statesmen compared to what we've got now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread