U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 10-30-2018, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,756 posts, read 16,476,760 times
Reputation: 9292

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryK123 View Post
Another agree.

I'll also stir the pot with there should be term limits in congress. 2 terms max. No career politicians.
ONE TERM is enough!

Taking it a few steps further, IMO serving in congress ought to be like jury duty. Pick names out of a hat so to speak. If/when your name gets picked you serve ONE TERM with a reasonable salary ( Less than half of the current salary ) and benefits. When you finish your term, the benefits vanish. Any retired government official caught lobbying, gets an automatic life in prison sentence with no chance of parole.

Certainly janitors, mail carriers, carpenters, plumbers, hair dressers, waitresses, etc would do a MUCH better job of representing we-the-people than the lawyers currently dominating the system who mostly represent their corporate sponsors/bosses rather than we-the-people.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-30-2018, 08:46 PM
 
Location: Denver via Austin
2,984 posts, read 6,232,778 times
Reputation: 3148
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post
ONE TERM is enough!

Taking it a few steps further, IMO serving in congress ought to be like jury duty. Pick names out of a hat so to speak. If/when your name gets picked you serve ONE TERM with a reasonable salary ( Less than half of the current salary ) and benefits. When you finish your term, the benefits vanish. Any retired government official caught lobbying, gets an automatic life in prison sentence with no chance of parole.

Certainly janitors, mail carriers, carpenters, plumbers, hair dressers, waitresses, etc would do a MUCH better job of representing we-the-people than the lawyers currently dominating the system who mostly represent their corporate sponsors/bosses rather than we-the-people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2018, 09:37 PM
 
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
15,026 posts, read 16,613,443 times
Reputation: 28947
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyDog77 View Post
So you value volume of land over people? 1.338M people voted for Clinton, 1.202 voted Trump. Are you saying that shouldn’t matter because the rural counties are geographically larger but sparsely populated? That doesn’t make sense. Urbanites have way too much say? There are way more of us.

If anything, rural America has too much say. That’s why Trump won. 65.8M Americans voted for Clinton. Only 62.9M voted Trump.
I see what you are saying, and we are paying the price with our current president, but consider that if we decided the president on the popular vote rather than the electoral college, then presidential candidates would not campaign in Colorado, they wouldn't even give Colorado more than lip service if you are lucky. What are there, 5.5 million votes in Colorado? And not even dominated by a single party?

Democrat candidates would concentrate their campaigning in New York, California, and a handful of larger metropolises that are blue strongholds. Now, what they promise to those places might be good for Denverites and Boulderites, but that's what they would count on. Not your cares, specific to your home state, just your vote.

Meanwhile, Republicans would be campaigning in their so-called "real America": Texas, interior PNW and the Western Slope, all across the deep south and the rust belt.

But Colorado, on the whole, would be a political afterthought.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2018, 10:54 PM
 
359 posts, read 313,763 times
Reputation: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQConvict View Post
I see what you are saying, and we are paying the price with our current president, but consider that if we decided the president on the popular vote rather than the electoral college, then presidential candidates would not campaign in Colorado, they wouldn't even give Colorado more than lip service if you are lucky. What are there, 5.5 million votes in Colorado? And not even dominated by a single party?

Democrat candidates would concentrate their campaigning in New York, California, and a handful of larger metropolises that are blue strongholds. Now, what they promise to those places might be good for Denverites and Boulderites, but that's what they would count on. Not your cares, specific to your home state, just your vote.

Meanwhile, Republicans would be campaigning in their so-called "real America": Texas, interior PNW and the Western Slope, all across the deep south and the rust belt.

But Colorado, on the whole, would be a political afterthought.
Exactly. With a change like that you'd see a dramatic shift in campaigning strategy, as well as voting tendencies in the non-swing states. For example, there is no reason for me to vote in California. Most conservatives don't see there being a point since our voice literally doesn't matter (sound familiar?). But if my vote actually mattered (which is what you people are proposing), a lot more conservatives would suddenly show up to vote. Same probably applies to New York. And Texas, but reverse. Of course, this could be insignificant since both sides might increase equally in this scenario.

The point is, changing the structure doesn't mean that the results you are assuming will actually occur. There are a lot of factors that are involved.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2018, 11:00 PM
 
Location: Denver CO
19,116 posts, read 10,137,245 times
Reputation: 28008
I'm not saying there are no downsides to career politicians, but the flip side is that with term limits, particularly very short ones, it's means lobbyists run the country even more than they currently do because the politicians wouldn't be around long enough to learn how to do things.

Term limits work differently for the executive office, because of the size of the presidential staff - so they can have the support of enough people who do know what they are doing. But 435 Congressmen can't have big enough permanent staffs to do that.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2018, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Washington Park, Denver
6,611 posts, read 5,892,447 times
Reputation: 6932
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQConvict View Post
I see what you are saying, and we are paying the price with our current president, but consider that if we decided the president on the popular vote rather than the electoral college, then presidential candidates would not campaign in Colorado, they wouldn't even give Colorado more than lip service if you are lucky. What are there, 5.5 million votes in Colorado? And not even dominated by a single party?

Democrat candidates would concentrate their campaigning in New York, California, and a handful of larger metropolises that are blue strongholds. Now, what they promise to those places might be good for Denverites and Boulderites, but that's what they would count on. Not your cares, specific to your home state, just your vote.

Meanwhile, Republicans would be campaigning in their so-called "real America": Texas, interior PNW and the Western Slope, all across the deep south and the rust belt.

But Colorado, on the whole, would be a political afterthought.
What have any presidents done for Colorado lately anyway? I don’t care that they show up here when they’re campaigning. That doesn’t do anything for me.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2018, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,051 posts, read 98,999,163 times
Reputation: 31540
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74 View Post
I'm not saying there are no downsides to career politicians, but the flip side is that with term limits, particularly very short ones, it's means lobbyists run the country even more than they currently do because the politicians wouldn't be around long enough to learn how to do things.

Term limits work differently for the executive office, because of the size of the presidential staff - so they can have the support of enough people who do know what they are doing. But 435 Congressmen can't have big enough permanent staffs to do that.
The old "that's different", hey? I wouldn't object to 2-3 terms for senator (12-18 years) and 6 or so for representatives (12 years). It would be nice to avoid more situations like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd. Incumbency is a very strong election tool.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2018, 08:01 PM
 
Location: Golden, CO
2,179 posts, read 5,426,007 times
Reputation: 2069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
The old "that's different", hey? I wouldn't object to 2-3 terms for senator (12-18 years) and 6 or so for representatives (12 years). It would be nice to avoid more situations like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd. Incumbency is a very strong election tool.
Totally agree. While I like the idea of term limits, I don't think short term limits (like a 1-term limit) would work very well. With the political climate the way it is, would even have enough candidates? It's not worth it to me to run for an office and have my life or family torn apart because of an accusation and/or some random, insignificant event from my past. (ZOMG ONE TIME I GOT A WARNING FROM RTD BECAUSE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE FARE STRUCTURE FOR THE LIGHT RAIL AND BOUGHT THE WRONG KIND OF TICKET!)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2018, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Denver CO
19,116 posts, read 10,137,245 times
Reputation: 28008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
The old "that's different", hey? I wouldn't object to 2-3 terms for senator (12-18 years) and 6 or so for representatives (12 years). It would be nice to avoid more situations like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd. Incumbency is a very strong election tool.
I'd be good with limits like that - long enough to get the benefit of going through the learning curve, but still some limits to rotate in new people and new ideas periodically.

Frankly, I'd be fine with term limited Supreme Court Justices too, with a rotating schedule so that a new one comes in every 2 years, every President knows they get 2 appointments per 4 year term, and no more of this asinine political BS that the Court appointments have turned into.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2018, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Denver via Austin
2,984 posts, read 6,232,778 times
Reputation: 3148
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74 View Post
I'd be good with limits like that - long enough to get the benefit of going through the learning curve, but still some limits to rotate in new people and new ideas periodically.

Frankly, I'd be fine with term limited Supreme Court Justices too, with a rotating schedule so that a new one comes in every 2 years, every President knows they get 2 appointments per 4 year term, and no more of this asinine political BS that the Court appointments have turned into.
John Oliver actually put forth an idea that I really agree with. Make Supreme Court terms of 18 years, with 2 appointments per presidential cycle, 1 per congressional cycle.

The lifetime appointments making things less political was an idealistic thing the Founding Fathers had in mind that never panned out.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top