The “status quo” is people voting for who they want.
If you believe that people voting for who they want is “failing our country,” that’s definitely an opinion that you’re allowed to hold - but you should not be surprised that others find that authoritarian mindset to be immoral.
It will take Boston, Sacramento, Albany, Des Moines, Denver and Chicago banning or adding an extended delay to the practice. Which is probably not super likely.
Heh. My firm’s office is on K Street.
The status quo is political lifers getting elected and then the staying in office for decades, insulated by their donors and positions of authority from losing an election. During their time in office they solve no problems, rather giving lip service to issues but making sure the exist as an endless campaign issue. In the process you’ve got multiple political lifers becoming filthy rich on their congressional salaries…
You apparently consider the 22nd Amendment to be immoral? From Constitutioncenter.org…
““No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once,” the amendment read.
For generations, Americans and politicians veered away from the concept of a third-term President. George Washington had set an unofficial precedent in 1796 when he decided several months before the election not to seek a third term.(The concept of term limits was discussed at the Constitutional Convention but not enacted in the Constitution.)
In 1799, a friend again urged Washington to come out of retirement to run for a third term. Washington made his thoughts quite clear, especially when it came to new phenomena of political parties. “The line between Parties,” Washington said, had become “so clearly drawn” that politicians “regard neither truth nor decency; attacking every character, without respect to persons – Public or Private, – who happen to differ from themselves in Politics.”
36 states term limit their governors. Is that immoral?
“36 states have term limits on their governors imposed at the founding of their respective state constitutions. Term limits on governors are a common and effective check and balance in statewide governance. Historically, in the 34 states with term limits, every gubernatorial election has been contested.
Vermont and New Hampshire do not impose term limits on their governor, however, they are the only states where the terms are just two years as opposed to the four year terms typical of most other states. The most common limit is two-consecutive, four year terms. The only state with a one-term lifetime limit is Virginia.
Former Iowa Governor Terry Branstad holds the record for longest “serving” governor in U.S. history with a combined 24 years (six, four-year terms) in office.” Term Limits on Governor - U.S. Term Limits
15 states have imposed term limits on their legislatures…apparently all of them enacted since 1990.
There are good reasons these entities imposed term limits….none of it has to do with acting immoral. That’s just silly.
Really? What do you think of my proposal?
if K street is so Special, pour some milk on it…
I see you
Very true. Doesn’t it get old after every election hearing the tired old ■■■■■■■■ about how the voters have spoken? Then there’s all these people looking to spin some of profound message that voters were giving.
No one should be allowed to vote for a cognitively handicapped candidate. Such people cannot represent the interests of their constituents with integrity.
integrity… politicians…
irony
It’s like they honestly believe these ■■■■■■■■ who keep getting reelected over and over again are truly amazing special people?
Are you describing your representative, and how they have manipulated you into voting for them, over and over, without “solving problems?”
Or is this just a narrative you’ve imagined for those other people who vote for the politicians you don’t like?
As for the rest of your post: Yes - I believe that term limits as a general concept are (again for lack of a better word) “immoral,” in the sense that they arbitrarily restrict the choice of candidates.
But arguments for term limits for Congress are different, because of how Congress works - particularly in a modern context. I would argue it makes the term limits argument more immoral.
And, no doubt, you consider yourself to be enough of an authority to make that determination.
Just wanna pull this out and highlight it.
A lot of this going around.
No it isn’t. What are you talking about?
Thete are some basic cognitive tests that ser an acceptable baseline candidates should be able to meer
I am glad you brought up judicial.
Being the 3 branches were designed to be essentially equal, would you be in favor of complete age transparency for leadership between them all?
For example, something like this from each branch-
President /VP
Speaker of the House/ Majority Leader
Minority House WHIP/ #3
Senate Majority/ #2
Senate Minority/ #2
and Chief Justice-and (new?) #2 on high court
For Congress, none of these can start serving if they turn 70 by the time each new Congressional session forms every two years.
In the case of Executive and Judicial Branches use the same age parameter with Jan 20th every four years after each general election.
Here is a slightly different take on the matter.
What royally pisses me off is office holders that spend (pretty much) their entire term fund raising and positioning for reelection. At one time I thought the presidential term should be changed to a single 6-year term with no reelection.
But here is another thought…
Change the rules so that no office holder can run for reelection - period. At the end of the defined term the individual MUST leave office and they are not allowed to run for another office while either the * President or a Member of Congress.
They CAN run for election in the same office, but only after a break equal to at least 2 years. Two years being the minimum since that is the Representatives term.
Additionally during an individuals term, they are barred from campaigning, establishing reelection committees or fund raising for future campaigns.
This means to me:
Non-consecutive terms is the way the Virginia Governorship is, i.e. not eligible for consecutive terms. I’ve grown to like that method.
Yes it would take a Constitutional amendment, and yes I realize that the politicians (left or right) will never let this happen. But I think it would be a positive outcome.
WW
I would think you would have to make some terms longer. 2 years hardly allows new people to learn their job effectively. Certinatly there would be a leadership void and ignorance of rules and procedures.
