Do you support term limits for the U.S. Congress? 

 

Should these lawmakers serve just a set amount of years and then move on? Would this reduce corruption? Would this help keep our lawmakers in touch with the people? 

 

Or do you think that we already have term limits in the form of something called the voting booth? 

 

Do you think that term limits would hurt third parties more than it would the two major parties if third party candidates start getting elected to Congress as it is easier for the two major parties to generate new candidates?

 

Let us know your thoughts on term limits......

 

Related:  Join the Term Limits Group


Views: 474

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Nope. Doesn't look like "Term Limits" is on the Citizen Party Platform yet. At least not on the "Short Version". I reckon that is why "CP" opened this discussion; to help make a party determination as to whether this issue should be on the platform or not.

You are correct. We included the term limits question in previous member surveys. Overall, most supported term limits. But, we had some strong vocal opposition to it as well in the surveys. So, we added this discussion to allow members to more fully discuss the idea. It will most likely be added to the platform, but we wanted to further allow debate and all of the arguments "for" and "against" first. 

Uh...there is a "Term Limits" Group here. I will go in there and see what is being said.

Good evening, Hunter Wayne Crow. It's Good to see your latest reply.

That Senator in Texas might be more interested in setting a time in office record than serving his People well. But, maybe not. He might be an exceptional Human Being. He has lots of "experience", through so much time in office, but probably is having a difficult time remembering it. I don't know the particulars of his personality and character, but it does seem to me that most People, the older they get, the more rooted in the status quo they become. Of course there are exceptions to this.

I suppose, if We The People manage to come to a consensus , or majority, about whether or not Meaningful Change is needed in Our Nation, then younger, more energetic office holders might Better serve Our Needs. They might be more willing to put pressure on the "way things are" and improve it. Longer term limits might augment this phenomena and give it the lasting strengths needed to see it through to the goal of the particular change. But, at the same time, this longer term limit (if no other circumstance is put into place to reinforce it...goal oriented supervision?) increases the opportunities for "corruption" influences to erode the younger office holder's resolve. This "goal oriented supervision" could be provided by We The People (as active participants in the governmental process), but a lot of work would have to be done to prepare Us for this "sacred" ("sacred" meaning very very important) task.

You recommended: "...one term for us congress should  do it..."

Because I tend to support any proposal and action that moves Us closer to "Better" social and political ideals, (in this case some limitation on term of office holding service), I support your recommendation.

I look forward to your next comment here, or elsewhere in this great site.

The opening article of this discussion string includes the question: "Or do you think that we already have term limits in the form of something called the voting booth?"

Well? Yes, We sort of do. We could, as voters, decide majoritarily to not re-elect an office holder. We do this all the time.

And now that i think about this, I begin to wonder if any further "control" is needed in Democracy? Are there those of Us who know Better than the rest of Us? And do these have the right to...ooops...caught myself going off on an unecessary tangent.

The point being: Term Limits are already ostensibly under the control of the Will Of The People.

Observation: But this "control" is manipulable by those of Us who see the need for such influence. And herein lies one of the problems with Democracy. (a solvable problem...I believe)

The introductory article for this discussion string asks:

"Do you think that term limits would hurt third parties more than it would the two major parties if third party candidates start getting elected to Congress as it is easier for the two major parties to generate new candidates?"

I think yes...at first. But then as the two major oligarchic parties diminish (by The Will Of The People) this "hurt" will become less and less. A lot depends on the performance of the third party office holders.

RSS

Citizens

 


© 2017   Created by Citizens Party   Powered by

Citizens Party Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

About your image
Join our CircleFollow Us On TwitterJoin our CircleVisit Us On FacebookFollow Us Youtube
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger... Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...