HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Would you support a Const...

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 12:07 PM

Would you support a Constitutional Amendment to change House terms from 2 years to 4 years?

Would you support changing the terms of House members from 2 years to 4 years?

The argument for 4-year house terms is that House members essentially are in constant campaign mode. Since they are always having to fundraise, and work for a re-election that is right around the corner, it makes them more susceptible to outside interest groups with deep pockets.

The argument against 4-year house terms is that the 2-year election cycle makes House members more responsive to the public mood, and more responsive to constituent needs.
17 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
I'd support a Constitutional Amendment making House terms 4 years instead of 2 years
1 (6%)
I'd oppose a Constitutional Amendment making House terms 4 years instead of 2 years
16 (94%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

20 replies, 915 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 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply Would you support a Constitutional Amendment to change House terms from 2 years to 4 years? (Original post)
Algernon Moncrieff Oct 2016 OP
napi21 Oct 2016 #1
Orrex Oct 2016 #2
MANative Oct 2016 #3
edhopper Oct 2016 #4
neeksgeek Oct 2016 #5
meow2u3 Oct 2016 #14
Brickbat Oct 2016 #7
Fluke a Snooker Oct 2016 #8
Algernon Moncrieff Oct 2016 #17
Nye Bevan Oct 2016 #9
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Oct 2016 #10
rurallib Oct 2016 #11
atreides1 Oct 2016 #12
JI7 Oct 2016 #15
La Lioness Priyanka Oct 2016 #13
CBGLuthier Oct 2016 #16
Skink Oct 2016 #18
ChairmanAgnostic Oct 2016 #19
Stallion Oct 2016 #20

Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 12:10 PM

1. IMO, 2 years is too long to be able to get rid of a candidate who got your vote through

deception. Few if any keep their campaign promises, but some turn out to be downright horrible and must be ousted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 12:11 PM

2. Give them four years, but establish a one- or two-term limit

Same for the Senate.

And the limit should be reciprocal between both chambers; you can serve a total of two terms in the House or the Senate, or else one term in each.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 12:12 PM

3. I might support it IF they were also term-limited to two terms...

just like the President. But I'd also want to see two-year staggered elections to maintain some continuity and institutional knowledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 12:18 PM

4. public financing of elections

Ould remedy this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 12:19 PM

5. I would support an amendment adding term limits...

Two terms maximum, for both representatives and senators. But the terms should stay two and six years, respectively. I would not support any change of the term length.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neeksgeek (Reply #5)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 12:50 PM

14. I say term limits of 12 years total

6 terms for House members and 2 terms for Senators.

I also would propose term limits of 20 years for Supreme Court Justices, as well as lower court judges, to prevent their authority from going to their heads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 12:27 PM

7. Yeah, I think changing fundraising rules would be more effective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 12:27 PM

8. Only when progressives hold a substantial majority

 

Too many entrenched Tea Party types to worry about. Frankly, I would be more interested in upping representation of the Senate to more people, or eliminating it altogether and creating a unicameral legislature that listens to the PEOPLE, not the monied interests of the STATE, and making sure that Congress has more progressives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fluke a Snooker (Reply #8)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 01:03 PM

17. First, welcome to DU

Second, Bob Kerry threw out an interesting idea in his failed attempt at the Senate. He proposed making the Senate non-partisan. I'm not certain how much difference it would make, but the theory makes sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 12:28 PM

9. Yes, in conjunction with a requirement for nonpartisan Boundary Commissions,

which would set all district boundaries without reference to any partisan considerations, to put an end to gerrymandering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 12:28 PM

10. I support 4 year Rep terms

Lets just make them all during Presidential years, if you catch my drift.

I seriously think you can't get anything done in 2 years, well, except DESTROY the nation as Republicans do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 12:33 PM

11. no - but I would sure go for changing the senate to 4 years

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 12:40 PM

12. How about this?

How about limiting it to 2 four year terms, and do the same with the senate!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 12:55 PM

15. term limIts suck. california did it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 12:41 PM

13. i'd like everyone to be on the same 4 year presidential cycle. all these off year elections are just

 

wasteful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 01:00 PM

16. Nope and no damned term limits either. If Americans won't take responsibility for elections

then they deserve the results. I also believe in the repeal of the presidential term limit, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 01:03 PM

18. I'd make all primary elections open to all voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 01:04 PM

19. I would support an amendment that increased the size of the house

Doubling it in size.

435 people, actually less since TeaBaggers are neither human nor do they take their legislative duties seriously, are too few to adequately represent their constituents. 320,000,000 could never have actual representation from a mere 300+ people. Having so few reps actually increases the power of lobbyists, distances pols from people, and makes washington seem alien to those of us outside the beltway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Algernon Moncrieff (Original post)

Mon Oct 10, 2016, 01:51 PM

20. No End Gerrymandering and Make More District Competitive is What Needs to Be Done

nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread