Presidental Term

[Salty]

And the lack of opposition candidates is based on laziness. The American voters deserve what they get.

Could it be that the average candidte for Congress spent 1.1 million? and that 90% of the winners outspent the opponet?
That might explain why many dont run.

Facts are Facts C4K

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So the only answer is to tell Americans which constitutionally qualified individuals they can and cannot vote for?

 

[Arbo]

I think ALL federal elected jobs should be 4 year or 6 year one term only with NO federal employment or lobbying for the next 4 years or 6 years.

Do your union pals know about this? :laugh:

 

[kyredneck]

That would mean 4 years without a possibility of changing federal elected offices. 4 or 6 year terms I'm okay with, but I do think the terms should be staggered. For example, half of all seats in the House of Reps are up for election in 2014, the other half in 2016.....

No, 100% of House seats are up for grabs in 2012, as they are every two years; senate (six yr term) about 1/3 seats open for grabs every two years.

The founding fathers were wise in setting it up the way they did; 2 yr terms for reps, 4 yr terms for execs, 6 yr terms for senators; provides the republic some protection from swift sweeping changes that comes from demagoguery, and every two yrs able to make adjustments to the way things are going in D.C. (!994 being a prime example)

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

No, 100% of House seats are up for grabs in 2012, as they are every two years; senate (six yr term) about 1/3 seats open for grabs every two years.

The founding fathers were wise in setting it up the way they did; 2 yr terms for reps, 4 yr terms for execs, 6 yr terms for senators; provides the republic some protection from swift sweeping changes that comes from demagoguery, and every two yrs able to make adjustments to the way things are going in D.C. (!994 being a prime example)

Excellent post. Those guys were really, really sharp!

 

[Mexdeaf]

In reality - its because the one party is pretty sure they can not win - so they will not spend any money, and the candidate will not run, because he does not want a "loss" underneath his belt.

This is true especially in S. Texas!

 

[Aaron]

No, 100% of House seats are up for grabs in 2012, as they are every two years; senate (six yr term) about 1/3 seats open for grabs every two years.

The founding fathers were wise in setting it up the way they did; 2 yr terms for reps, 4 yr terms for execs, 6 yr terms for senators; provides the republic some protection from swift sweeping changes that comes from demagoguery, and every two yrs able to make adjustments to the way things are going in D.C. (!994 being a prime example)

And the senators should be elected by the state legislatures, as they were originally.

 

[glfredrick]

And the senators should be elected by the state legislatures, as they were originally.

Yes! That way the States also have adequate representation. As it is now, the people act in a way that is more akin to a democracy than a republic, and they are able to make the Congress a popularity contest, often voting for the congresspersons who will offer them the largest piece of the public treasury. We were warned about just that issue early in our history as a nation.

Once the people vote for the most popular treasury robbers, the states have to foot the bill. That is partly why we are in this sad state of affairs right now.

 

[go2church]

I tend to agree with those who are fine with the presidential term as currently held. I would love to see term limits on congress. Those senators and representatives seem to all go to Washington with good intentions but the toxic atmosphere of DC somehow changes them, makes them more getting elected focus then being a statesman(woman) focused.