How would the political climate change if all offices were 1 term?

This is a pessimistic view of politics, there are good people out there who want to make a difference, but I think it wouldn't do much good.

You'd get inexperienced people, and people pursing selfish ends even more cuz they've only got a short time.

On the flipside, you might get the opposite, people trying to work for the common good even more.

What do u think?

GregN. said:

What do u think?

Click to expand...

I think the stock market should crash again, dumb fucks dive out of sky scrappers when everything they put the totality of their existence in is gone in a nano-second... ppl should run wild in the streets, and the 50 states becomes the fucking Wild Wild West all over again. Where the stong rule and the weak must become strong or die, but nice ppl who are strong and have compassion for the down troden help the weak become stronger.

Then I think we should vote Captain Stabbin' for President.

...OKAY I'm joking (In White Goodman's Voice: "but not really, of course only when I am") ---Seriously though, I can see merit to what you're stating but the nation is already overran by corrupt assholes who make sure any fiery youth in the political system who wants to make change occur, doesn't happen and if it does those ppl end up just as jaded and ultimately the old farts who's main concern is lining their own damn pocket books while blowing sunshine up the collective majority's ass for votes... hand out some candy, line up a few hookers for the more $BLINGED OUT constituents, and it's back to doing nothing. Thus nothing short of a global economic breakdown is going to change anything in our political superstructure let alone anything else in the world. Most can't be bothered to vote one way or the other for what's there currently, and when they do it's for bumble fucks who want to keep everyone sucking the plantation masta's cock and begging to be ass fucked without lube, given the illusion that his semen is good for your skin and you like being a dependent piss clot. For the few who are different and want change, MONEY generally wins in the end.

The best interests for the nation do not come from the top down, it's from the ground up... but since no one cares such an idea of limiting officies to 1 term wouldn't work let alone ppl come together to take back their Grass Roots Democracy roots or powderkegged Revolution. Thus take what you can when you can, live in the shadows, learn the system... play the system, get big enough to be successful but never big enough to be crushed and destroy anyone who gets in your way that might seek to make you conform to the accepted standard that is the collective majority's acceptance.

...yeeesh I'm tired and I'm off to bed.

MERCENARY X99

Talk about permanent re-election. Elected officals would get even less done when having to worry about re-election ever year.

Edit: Sorry thought the thread said one year...

I thought all elections ARE only for one term.

I'll assume you mean what if all offices were term-limited to one term? Horrible idea. I work in government, and it takes elected officials at least 2 years on average (which is half of one term in most cases in local gov't) to get a decent idea of what they're trying to do and how to best fulfill that role.

Once an elected official learns how to do there job right, it's not in the best interest of the citizenry to just automatically throw them out of office. If they lose in the next election, great, democratic processes have spoken, but one-term term limits would be brutal for the sake of any semblance of continuity.

One 6 year term is what should happen. Just enough to get settled and get stuff done, but not too long. Plus no re-election.

Nesagwa said:

One 6 year term is what should happen. Just enough to get settled and get stuff done, but not too long. Plus no re-election.

Click to expand...

I agree with t3h hippie. During the first 4-year term, one year is spent getting settled in, and the last year of course is spent trying to get reelected - so basically half of the entire term is wasted (and that's probably being optimistic). I think a six-year term would allow the pres to spend more time actually doing his job.

single term probably wouldn't work, but the House and Senate SHOULD have limits. The problem is that voters are just too complacent and vote in the same people repeatedly. And of course, putting limits on terms would require the House and Senate to pass the bill, and let's face it, they like their cooshy jobs so you know that would never happen.

So the question is a rhetorical question that will never be answered.

galfordo said:

I agree with t3h hippie. During the first 4-year term, one year is spent getting settled in, and the last year of course is spent trying to get reelected - so basically half of the entire term is wasted (and that's probably being optimistic). I think a six-year term would allow the pres to spend more time actually doing his job.

Click to expand...

Uhm, hello?

Senators are already on a 6 year term

Granted, Congressmen in the House are 2 year terms, which IS kind of silly.

But why should the President be limited and not Congress? Fuck if I know.

slerch666 said:

Uhm, hello?

Senators are already on a 6 year term

Granted, Congressmen in the House are 2 year terms, which IS kind of silly.

But why should the President be limited and not Congress? Fuck if I know.

Click to expand...

I was talking about the president really. But single terms for senators, or maybe a max of three, two year terms for senate and congress would work too.

Governments kind of stale when you have the same people in it for 50 years in a row.

Nesagwa said:

I was talking about the president really. But single terms for senators, or maybe a max of three, two year terms for senate and congress would work too.

Governments kind of stale when you have the same people in it for 50 years in a row.

Click to expand...

There was legislation that was attempted to pass to limit the total terms a Congress Person is able to run. Their argument against this is that the American public shouldn't be limited to this as they should be allowed to vote in whoever they want. So of course it never got passed.

So that's different from the President how? Oh... it's not.

That's the kind of shit that really irritates me.

Nesagwa said:

I was talking about the president really. But single terms for senators, or maybe a max of three, two year terms for senate and congress would work too.

Governments kind of stale when you have the same people in it for 50 years in a row.

Click to expand...

Those backwood hillbillies kept re-electing Strom Thurman!

If it wasn't for triple and subsequent terms, we might have never gotten out of the depression or won the war.

GregN. said:

This is a pessimistic view of politics, there are good people out there who want to make a difference, but I think it wouldn't do much good.

You'd get inexperienced people, and people pursing selfish ends even more cuz they've only got a short time.

On the flipside, you might get the opposite, people trying to work for the common good even more.

What do u think?

Click to expand...

It wouldn't make a difference. Man can't and never will fix the worlds or their individual countries problems.