Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
TatonkaJames

Election Cycles need change ?

Rate this topic

11 posts in this topic

I'm not good at all when trying to explain things, but here goes;

 

I heard an interesting take on why nothing gets accomplished in Washington. Why not hold house and congressional elections every four years with the presidential election? I don't know how many other countries are similar to ours, not many I believe, but wouldn't it make sense to have all elections every four years ? If the public is disenchanted with one party, they can elect that one for the most part instead of having divided houses ? Wouldn't a president accomplish more with his party in the majority for four years ? If the public doesn't like what it sees, then they can give the other side a shot at it.

 

Bad idea ? :confused:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for "one and done" terms. No re-elections whatsoever. There is no one more spineless, shameless and untrustworthy than a politician seeking re election. And this applies to every politician holding office today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think changing the election cycle is likely to achieve much because the problem runs much deeper than that. Term limits would help, but the only thing that will really stop this ship from going under is repairing the Constitution to END the government's free reign to tax and spend.

 

There's not too much to battle about in DC when you remove the power to control the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The founders made the election process slow & cumbersome for a reason; to put the brakes on hasty, emotion driven politics. It may be a pain in the ass, but it's still better than driving off the cliff in a dizzy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I think a LOT of stupid gets passed when one party has the power to ram thru a radical agenda.



 



they lose "plausible deniability" and the radicals will expect results.



 



not sure how Bush and the GOP majority mangaged to do NOTHING about abortion, without disenfranchising the christian right,



but they did.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seperating the houses was a very key part of the constitution,

 

 

there was concern that the congressmen would not be as sophisticated and reponsible as the Senate.

 

 

 

They wanted more stability in the senate, and thus the 6 year plan and each state getting equal representation.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seperating the houses was a very key part of the constitution,

 

 

'Tis true.

 

The Framers wanted the House to be closer to the people and the more distant, temperate Senate, to serve as a check on House restiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Tis true.

The Framers wanted the House to be closer to the people and the more distant, temperate Senate, to serve as a check on House restiveness.

 

They also wanted Senators to be appointed by the states, not elected by the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by lichum View Post

 

'Tis true.

 

The Framers wanted the House to be closer to the people and the more distant, temperate Senate, to serve as a check on House restiveness.

 

Which was trashed as soon as the people began voting for the Senate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.