Why is the Democratic party falling behind in popularity?

[Wells]

Our representatives spend as much as 90% of their time fund raising and running for reelection, rather then governing. If they can't get reelected due to term limits, there's a chance they'll do their job instead.

Right, but just changing the name of the person running doesn't change that, unless your term limits are set at one term, which is a whole other set of problems. If you're worried about all that time fund raising go for publicly funded elections only.

Honestly, term limits amount to little less than telling people they can't vote for someone they want to vote for. Lots of states have term limits in their governments. They haven't made Missouri suck any less that I can see. They certainly haven't improved our presidents.

[Hooked]

Yup. Obviously not the holy progressive ideology, right?

Progressives are in both parties. We just call republican progressives rhinos.

[Wells]

Thing with term limits is that once they're in their political seat, virtually every action they undertake is strictly to make sure they keep the seat, rather than... you know, legislating. Think of how basically every President gets so much done in their second term, because they no longer need to be so deeply concerned with keeping the seat.

Or setting themselves up for the revolving door between industry and legislature more often than not.

[Kujako]

Right, but just changing the name of the person running doesn't change that, unless your term limits are set at one term, which is a whole other set of problems. If you're worried about all that time fund raising go for publicly funded elections only.

Honestly, term limits amount to little less than telling people they can't vote for someone they want to vote for. Lots of states have term limits in their governments. They haven't made Missouri suck any less that I can see. They certainly haven't improved our presidents.

Publicly funded elections are now a violation of the first amendment thanks to citizens united. So that's a non-starter. Term limits would mean that the person currently elected wouldn't have to spend all their time getting reelected and thus could in theory do what they were elected to do. Not saying they will, but they could.

[Citizen T]

See above, popular vote vs election results. Do some searches for gerrymandering and you can see how ridiculous some of the district maps are.

For example... IL 4th district.

Awesome. Republicans must be gerrymandering around Chicago! Oh wait, the Democrats have controlled Illinois for the last 20 years or so.

[Wells]

Publicly funded elections are now a violation of the first amendment thanks to citizens united. So that's a non-starter. Term limits would mean that the person currently elected wouldn't have to spend all their time getting reelected and thus could in theory do what they were elected to do. Not saying they will, but they could.

How much of that time do you think is out meeting constituents vs fund raising? I don't see time spent meeting and speaking to your constituents as a bad thing to be honest. If you're doing a good job you should be reelected and that reasonably means a chance to make that case.

And yeah, Citizens United fucked us good and proper. But that doesn't make nonsolutions solutions in my eyes.

- - - Updated - - -

Awesome. Republicans must be gerrymandering around Chicago! Oh wait, the Democrats have controlled Illinois for the last 20 years or so.

No one is saying nothing is gerrymandered in the Democrat's favor.

[Kujako]

Awesome. Republicans must be gerrymandering around Chicago! Oh wait, the Democrats have controlled Illinois for the last 20 years or so.

I never said that only Republicans did it, but they've been more successful at it these last few rounds.

[Dren The Black]

Progressives are in both parties. We just call republican progressives rhinos.

True. Most people revile the rhinos... but they're hard to identify until they're already in office.

[Herecius]

Or setting themselves up for the revolving door between industry and legislature more often than not.

Part of legislative reform would be completely obliterating Citizen's United and completely reworking campaign funding laws, for sure.

[Wells]

Basically my problem with term limits is this: why should we tell people "hey this guy you think has been doing a good job for 20 years, you can't vote for him any more"? There are better ways to address the actual problems.

[Itisamuh]

Because people are fed up with their nonsense.

[I Push Buttons]

How much of that time do you think is out meeting constituents vs fund raising? I don't see time spent meeting and speaking to your constituents as a bad thing to be honest. If you're doing a good job you should be reelected and that reasonably means a chance to make that case.

And yeah, Citizens United fucked us good and proper. But that doesn't make nonsolutions solutions in my eyes.

Well outside of that, non-established candidates can't compete. Congressman Joe Schmoe has been in office for twenty years, no one the opposition runs is going to beat him... It doesn't matter what the political makeup of the district is, they aren't going to vote for some no-name new guy against the congressman of twenty years.

Name recognition is a huge part of the political process. Its why a lot of these congressmen run and get re-elected unopposed, because there is quite literally no way to compete against them.

[Dren The Black]

Basically my problem with term limits is this: why should we tell people "hey this guy you think has been doing a good job for 20 years, you can't vote for him any more"? There are better ways to address the actual problems.

We have a term limit for the president. If we don't have term limits we may basically turn ourselves into a defacto monarchy.

[Wells]

Well outside of that, non-established candidates can't compete. Congressman Joe Schmoe has been in office for twenty years, no one the opposition runs is going to beat him... It doesn't matter what the political makeup of the district is, they aren't going to vote for some no-name new guy against the congressman of twenty years.

Yeah, and that sucks. Its a mark in the favor of strict public campaign financing, but I don't think the power of name recognition warrants artificially restricting voters' choices.

[Stormspellz]

True. Most people revile the rhinos... but they're hard to identify until they're already in office.

they hate "rino's" because they drank the propaganda cool aid to do so.

went you discus policies with out names and rhetoric like "socialism" its pretty surprising what people actually fall under.

[Wells]

We have a term limit for the president. If we don't have term limits we may basically turn ourselves into a defacto monarchy.

We ran most of our history without turning in to one. If everyone thinks a president deserves 3 terms on his merits why not.

[Dren The Black]

they hate "rino's" because they drank the propaganda cool aid to do so.

went you discus policies with out names and rhetoric like "socialism" its pretty surprising what people actually fall under.

Discuss without names... an interesting concept. It may turn out that no one can communicate without a few predetermined words to describe nouns.

[I Push Buttons]

We ran most of our history without turning in to one.

Yeah we were too busy being a plutocracy.

[Wells]

Yeah we were too busy being a plutocracy.

Buddy term limits isn't going to change that.

[Dren The Black]

We ran most of our history without turning in to one. If everyone thinks a president deserves 3 terms on his merits why not.

I guess we could have had 3 or 4 terms of Regan. FDR did serve 4 terms. I mean, if term limits are so bad why did we pass the 22 amendment to the constitution... which required 3/4ths of the states to ratify it.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah we were too busy being a plutocracy.

In before conspiracy theories about the Illuminati and the Koch brothers... Guys, we're the closest thing to a meritocracy that's possible. You do well, you rise up based on your merits. True, some people like the Kennedy's, Clinton's, and Bush's only make it as far as they do because of their wealth and who their family is, but mostly it's people who have achieved something in their lives.