2009-11-22T06:29:41Z opencongress.org tag:opencongress.org,2007:/bill/comments/53597 2009-11-22T06:29:41Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-11-22:/comment/170976 brking I'm not sure what you mean by "work". but i will assume it means to a more efficient system of government. term limits along won't work, to some extent. that is they will promote a more competitive open-seat race in district that are moderate, so as you say would ending gerrymandering, which seem like a quick fix of making bipartisan committees to draw districts instead of who ever is in office every 10 years. why is it that 80% house incumbent and 95% senators get reelected. i would point to funding. PAC's others favor incumbents 92% of the time. the money matters big time as more often than not he or she who has the most funding wins. laws that limit terms would also have to at minimum apply state wide, look at California. they limited terms ,but it has done little to make thinks competitive simply become they are carpetbagger in some sense they can just move to another district and run again as representatives. 2009-11-22T22:14:05Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-11-22:/comment/171256 FallenMorgan An open-seat election doesn't ensure a competitive race, when a district is drawn to be 70% Democrat (or Republican). And bipartisan committees aren't that effective - the best way would either to draw districts using the splitline algorithm, or have the districts drawn by a panel of judges, like in Colorado and Texas. Of course, there will be districts that have a definite majority one way or another, but... 1) They'll be less frequent. 2) When they do occur, it will be because of natural geography, and not the special interests of partisans. Most representatives get re-elected because they're from gerrymandered, unfair districts. Senators get re-elected because they have money from lobbyists - it's been that way since the 17th Amendment. 2009-11-19T23:02:18Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-11-19:/comment/170421 mjbanks no way, jose. 2009-10-28T15:47:38Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-10-28:/comment/154265 Betonavette You have to give the ObamaNation and his merry Marxists credit. They are trying aren't they? 2009-10-19T17:58:10Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-10-19:/comment/145773 FallenMorgan We have term limits. They're called elections. Problem is, the districts are drawn so that candidates get re-elected over and over again. Get rid of gerrymandering and you won't need term limits. 2009-10-15T10:48:07Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-10-15:/comment/142493 AlmostFreeAmerican Without rigid term limits we end up with career politicians who bow down to the 'special interest lobby' who pay them outrageous amounts of money to vote in certain ways. This is what the Founding Fathers were against! Once the big money starts to roll in for these career politicians they stop representing the People and lean to the hand that feeds them. Read the Federalist Papers and you will learn 'why' they constructed the Constitution the way it is. Then again, the Anti-Federalist Papers are quite the good read too! 2009-10-11T19:12:22Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-10-11:/comment/140308 FallenMorgan Term limits won't work. A majority of districts will still be "safe districts" for one party or another. See, politicians only support things that they know will not threaten their party or themselves. Same with Instant Runoff Voting. Do you really want to stop Congressional stagnation? End gerrymandering. 2009-10-07T13:00:38Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-10-07:/comment/136769 henhousefox Yo, Jose, trying to start a movement seeking job security for all you jerks in DC??? NOT! 2009-03-19T21:28:55Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-03-19:/comment/97031 pegwinn Actually if you reverse yourself on the house and senate you will be pretty much inline with the constitution as originally signed before the 17th Amendment. By and large I disagree with term limits. After all, this is still America and we should be free to pursue any career we want. Term limits should occur at the ballot box. I do find it a bit scary that this has been proposed immediatly following an election where the incumbent could not run again. Several things are starting to worry me. I dugg this http://the--realist.blogspot.com/2009/03/conspiracy-theories.html and hope you will too. 2009-07-29T08:32:29Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-07-29:/comment/115763 apache01 The limits of terms the Congress, Senate, and Whitehouse all serve, should remain in place forever!!! No person, should have the opportunity to die in office. Especially when they reach a certain age and are truthfully no longer to even travel anymore to do their job due to health issues. Strom Thurmond should have been removed from office years before his death considering his own health and inability to travel to Washington to do the job he was unable to properly do. Actually, there need to be more restrictions and limitations put in place. Such as a contract before running for any office to live on the National Poverty level of income with no other funds whatsoever for at least 8 years prior to running for any elected office. Both the person running, and families as well. If they recieve any other funds, they're disqualified from any office, forever. 2009-10-02T00:21:52Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-10-02:/comment/133537 heaton646 Now we can actually see how far left our government has gone. To try and rewrite the 22nd ammendment of our Constitution. Seems to me that we all need to start fighting back and standing up for what our Four Fathers had founded this country on. First and foremost all need to put GOD back into everything in their life. 2009-09-30T09:02:59Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-09-30:/comment/132226 louisabernethyy Make is so no one can serve more than one term. The all get stupid after that. 2009-09-16T18:40:25Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-09-16:/comment/126958 Terrco Please don't forget, they have voted themselves tax free income, and pay no social security tax, and they only have to serve one term to get paid for LIFE!!! I would like to see mandatory minimum wage for all seats (let them serve not be served), and give the savings as raises to military vets and surviving family who risk their lives for you and I. 2009-09-20T17:12:28Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-09-20:/comment/128125 FallenMorgan Like Bush could really get a third term, or even the Republican nomination. 2009-09-17T15:40:56Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-09-17:/comment/127485 LucasFoxx Years ago I agreed with this. Reagan, okay. Clinton, okay. But I'm not sure democracy itself could have survived a 3rd GWB term. So much power in so few hands needs to be regularly passed on. If the policies are good for the people, the people will vote to continue those policies. John McCain failed because those policies failed. Had Rovian politics had more terms available to wield the cult of personality that was GWB, we would be continuing the slide towards global isolation via ostracism. 2009-09-17T11:26:52Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-09-17:/comment/127288 Tamara48 I think this man Serrano better start acting like an American....not just to keep his seat but to stay in the country! 2009-07-29T08:38:22Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-07-29:/comment/115766 apache01 How to you think that would help stop all the frivalous spending of tax payers money? Most of the elected officials in this country, even down to the local levels, don't know HOW to live on a budget. So passin a law like this, would make all in any level of power learn the value and importance of sticking to a budget, and not let any of them go blow 40 million dollars in pork spending which isn't theirs in the firt place! Why are these politicians not being tried and convicted for stealing money from the US government, which is owned, operated, and FUNDED, by the American Tax Paying Citizens. That's not an open bank account for any of them. No wonder they're trying to get this bill passed! So they, and those like them, can stay there stealing millions and millions more from the American people! I say, not just no, but HELL NO!!!! Place more limitations, not lift what few are in place! 2009-02-28T03:39:00Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-02-28:/comment/91724 csledbetter Have you ever voted for the incumbent in an election? If so, you are partly responsible for the current situation. We wouldn't need a term-limit amendment if we just never re-elected anybody. Maybe we really are too stupid to be citizens. 2009-09-16T18:36:14Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-09-16:/comment/126952 Terrco I'm sorry, don't you mean 10 term house rats? 2009-09-16T16:31:46Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-09-16:/comment/126899 FallenMorgan The shortest split-line algorithm creates districts that are one hundred percent impartial. They are not based on race, religion, or political affiliation. There will be safe districts, like in the heart of LA or in the depths of the Deep South, but most will not be like that. We won't need term limits, because the more competitive, fair districts will re-elect a candidate as long as there is a popular consensus, but if someone else comes along, that incumbent will be defeated. In most districts today, candidates win by sixty-or-more-percent margins. Others besides the incumbent have no chance. If you create term limits, there won't be any major change. And on top of that, to some extent career politicians are a good thing. Presidents were usually governors or senators, and before that mayors or members of congress. Term limits put a cap on this, and also inhibit the will of the people.