Died Suddenly
- Thread starter PJay
- Start date
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I think I might prefer term limits for legislators that are VERY BRIEF - one for Senate and two for House. Done.
I know enough about statisitics to know a random sampling of American citizens would certainly produce a bunch of nitwits who could not do anything in Washington or anywhere else. Heck, we at least voir dire juries.
I can't agree enough.
Sneakers
Just sneakin' around....
Hey everybody... look! It's THAT guy from the internet.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I know - I intended to paraphrase, because when I quote, I put it in quotes.
Just lazy I guess.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
I've been on juries with some real idiots too.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Oh without question. It's not for naught that defendants say "I'm about to be judged by 12 people too stupid to avoid jury duty".
And during voir dire, each counselor uses their best social skills to size up the potential juror to weigh the case in their favor. I suppose that SOMETIMES, a stupid juror is preferable.
What I am saying though is - even though the summons to jury duty IS random - sort of - they go by voter registration - the jury selection ITSELF is not at all random, even though it's popularly expressed as a random sample of your peers. THAT isn't even close to true, but since both counsels are assumed to be equal in their ability to size up the pool - it's at least - even.
You do NOT want a completely random sample of persons to appear in the House. Even when we do surveys at my work, we purposely INCLUDE members of a survey because their EXCLUSION would slant the results. Sort of like sampling the businesses around Seattle and somehow NOT include Microsoft. An opinion poll for an election does typically restrict its sample to people who actually vote - and who probably WILL vote.
Also, since each representative MUST represent a specific district - which is, after all, the whole POINT of the House - it would mean randomly picking ONE person out of roughly 720,000 members of a district, and without conditions, it's a certainty you will get someone wholly unsuitable for the job.
I think it's perfectly acceptable for someone to serve one or two terms - and that's it. Their whole purpose is to represent their district. Surely if they have an ounce of brains, they can give their opinion and vote accordingly.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
To follow up on my previous post --
I just did a quick look at tenures of random House members, historically. And I found more or less what I expected to find -
That up until a certain point in our history, it was generally NORMAL for a representive to appear in one Congress - two - MAYBE three - and then no more, even if followed by a member of the same party. I found this generally true wherever I went -
Until roughly around the time from the First World War or the Second.
From then on, the pattern was MUCH LONGER terms in office - I didn't look at enough to get an average, but it wasn't unuusual for someone to serve seven, eight or more terms before either retiring or running for higher office.
Why did this happen? When did the House stop being the people's House and become the lower SENATE? Where did it become an idea in the general public NOT to send one of their own to Washington, but some long tenured politician to keep the position as long as they wanted it?
Term limits weren't necessary before this. They LEFT. What happened?
I just did a quick look at tenures of random House members, historically. And I found more or less what I expected to find -
That up until a certain point in our history, it was generally NORMAL for a representive to appear in one Congress - two - MAYBE three - and then no more, even if followed by a member of the same party. I found this generally true wherever I went -
Until roughly around the time from the First World War or the Second.
From then on, the pattern was MUCH LONGER terms in office - I didn't look at enough to get an average, but it wasn't unuusual for someone to serve seven, eight or more terms before either retiring or running for higher office.
Why did this happen? When did the House stop being the people's House and become the lower SENATE? Where did it become an idea in the general public NOT to send one of their own to Washington, but some long tenured politician to keep the position as long as they wanted it?
Term limits weren't necessary before this. They LEFT. What happened?
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
I’d like to see voter turnout over that same period you examined.
I am of the belief that we already have term limits - in the form of elections. Give me 90%+ turnout for every election and I guarantee you a fresh government from schoolhouse to White House every election.
It’s turnout and apathy that has changed I’d bet.
I'd venture the guess, more and more power and authority taken on by the Federal Government because of the wars, Prohibition and the Great Depression. That level of control is addicting.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I just think it’s strange that for a hundred or more years, representatives served usually one or two term - and lately for much longer. I do know that most incumbents get re-elected. We get all excited over a 20-40 seat change - but that’s less than 10%. 90% or more KEEP their seat.
Something is different. Normally my opinion concurs with Hemi - we have elections. But I find it difficult to believe that there’s so low an approval rating and yet they’re almost always re-elected. Also - money spent has a high correlation with winning. Correlation. Not confirmation. I’m well aware that money doesn’t guarantee a win, but it does more often than it doesn’t.
And lastly - I think we should have them because that’s what it was supposed to be. A voice for the people. Not a permanent strata of politicians. Someone who speaks for the district but otherwise goes back home.
jrt_ms1995
Well-Known Member
I think, back then, they had to leave IOT earn a living.
My guess is the amount of corruption and graft. They're getting greased hand over fist and don't want to give that up.
TPD
the poor dad
Television was invented. Voters no longer had to think for themselves- “journalists“ told them how to think and vote.
That's easy. Our guy/gal is the best ever. All the other guys/gals suck.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
For your consideration ...
The Federal Reserve Act is what happened. After that, to keep the critters in place and in line, they were offered inside access to information not yet public to profit from. Or else, a very short tenure. Simple as that. Graft and greed. Go along to get along with the ponzi scheme creators and profiteers, at the expense of the Nation. Or lose the next election.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
And yet you are calling for removal of that voice by advocating for the implementation of term limits. If the people want the same person shouldn't they be able to have that, which is how it is supposed to be.