All right, finally getting some clarity, thanks. So if a clear majority agree to #7, then we're probably fighting a losing battle.

One more question, when did the survey run? I joined GOOOH in August and haven't seen anything about a survey, so just curious when this ran and how I would know there is a survey available to take.

But I would still like to see how the membership would respond to a question like "should Representatives have the opportunity to run again after sitting out for 2 terms" just to gauge how strongly people support 2 and done.

I can't remember the exact date we put the survey online, but it was somewhere around mid-'08 if I recall correctly. I'll ask our developers and see if I can get a more accurate start date.

I think we took the survey offline in June - again, I'll see if I can get a more accurate date and will update this thread.

We will be issuing the survey again in a few months, with slightly updated (less ambiguous) wording on the same questions.

edub “On a personal note, just for the record, I voted "No" to both questions when I took the survey back in late '08...

The 110th Congress' overwhelming passage of the first Bailout caused me to change my mind on Term Limits and I now support them - barely.

My preference would be for a 3-term limit, as it would stagger the matriculation of Congressman between Presidential elections.”

You’re kidding right? You understand that by voting for Term Limits your going to make the problem worse?

The reason the first stimulus passed is that the Republican PARTY saw that their power was going to decline in NOV. At the time it was fairly clear that the republican candidate was not going to keep the executive branch in the hands of the PARTY and with that they could loose house and senate seats. So they passed a last minute bill to throw money at there biggest supporters.

The second stimulus bill passed because the first caused little outrage and the Democratic PARTY wanted their piece of the pie. So they blocked the second half of the money from the first and took all of the second to give to their interests. It is my understanding that a great deal of this money is still sitting there waiting to fund the Healthcare takeover, but I do not know this for sure. I have done little research on Healthcare.

My point is this is PARTY politics and your going to make it worse with Term Limits.

You’re not going to kill career politicians with TERM LIMITS! You’re simply going to move even more control over the candidates from themselves to the PARTIES. Then the good ones that stand up for what is right will go home and the ones that play the PARTY game will get to move on as Senators, Governors, White House Staff.

The GOOOH system will change that. If you to get enough votes to pass the amendment you’re going to need to take 66% of the house. If you get that then the super majority of people in the House will answer not to the party, but to the people of the distract. In two years if they want to continue on they will have to go home and ask the PEOPLE of the distract not the GOOOH party for the right to do so with little or no preferential treatment over someone that just walked through the door.

The problem now is that is reversed. If you want to continue on now you must ask your PARTY to put your name in front of the PEOPLE. This is the corruption you’re looking to fight. Term Limits simply will have NO effect on this.

Well it is a fine balance between the parties and the candidate right now. This is what I have been saying. Do you have any evidence that the parties do not support Term Limits? I mean right now the party is not going to walk up to the guy they just put in office and ask that he sign an amendment to fork over his power to the party in four years. So the see-saw sways back and forth by who is in power.

Right now the Republicans are pushing for Term Limits. If the Republicans were in the Dems would be doing it. I am telling you, however, both parties understand that Term Limits would benefit the power of the Party. So the only one that oppose Term Limits is the party in power as it would disproportionally effect them.

I support term limits. Two terms or less in the House seems too short. There are Chairmanships in committees that would need to be addressed.

If but for one or two terms, House ways and Means, Armed Services and others would be, or could be, open to manipulation by process or rule. We cannot be naive in a belief that every two years we would have people that understand how our government operates in and out of committee. Experience is still required to that extent.

I support limits more like Four terms as Representative and Two terms as Senator, with no more than Twenty-eight years total in our Federal Government.

This is a question that, at present, I cannot answer "yes".

I wrote GOOOH the following e-mail (e-mail text between the ***):

***
Regarding the question "*If it comes to a vote, do you commit to vote for an amendment to the Constitution that calls for term limits for the U.S. House of Representatives of two terms or less?"

As a student of Political Science in Undergrad at the time that there was a big push for term limits, I have given great thought to this subject.

There is a valid argument to be made that constantly introducing rookies into a law-making body leads to chaos and poorly worded/poorly thought-out legislation.

I answered "no" to this question and thus did not meet the requirement. But my logic is simple; I believe you can limit terms, but limit them less stringently than 2 terms in the House (only 4 years). I also believe that no Representative term limit should be less than a President's limit, as that could lead to even greater domination of the Legislative branch by the Executive.

...

It is generally not those who have been in Washington for short periods of time that ignore the people; it is usually those that have been there for decades.

Perhaps a better way to approach term limits would be to limit total time in House AND Senate to X years; they can run in an election that will put them over that limit, but once their years go over the limit they cannot run in either chamber again. I'd say somewhere between 20-30 years would allow for enough professionalism; just typing to you now I'm leaning toward the 20-year options more than the 30-year options I have favored so long.

I support term limits... but not limits as short as the criteria for being a candidate. While that is a very important policy voting question, I do not believe the question, as worded, is adequate as a litmus test for potential candidates.
***

There is a common saying in business: When you graduate from college, you know 10% of everything you NEED to know to be successful in business; the other 90%, you have to learn from experience.

I have seen this to be accurate. In my profession, when I jumped out on my own immediately after graduating, it was time to sink or swim. I sank - HARD - joining the ranks of many in my profession who do the same thing (there is a high failure rate among first-time solo practitioners). After being humbled and realizing there just might be that 90% I didn't know, I became an associate (for the last 3 years) and I am only now approaching what I recognize as the point I should have been at before branching out on my own.

Why do I bring this up? Because I figure my learning curve is about average. So assuming that to be the case (that the average job learning curve is 3 years WITH an effective tutor), a person will need 2-4 years to fully be effective in their job. PROBLEM: if we support a 4-year term limit, the GOOOH elected reps will be out just as they really hit their stride.

Additionally, what led to my breakout of knowledge and ability was an effective tutor. Who will be tutoring our representatives? Lobbyists? Longer-tenured reps (which will be tough to find in a 2-term limited House)? Who will our people turn to when trying to figure out a procedural question in the House?

We will not want GOOOH representatives to be looked at as unskilled, poorly-functioning amateurs. The only way to avoid such an image in such an elitist body as the House/Senate is to get some people who act professionally, have good ideas, and represent GOOOH well. When we get those people, we do not want to then turn around and toss them back out after a very SHORT 4 years, just after they hit their stride and start having impact in committees and sub-committees!

The Executive Branch already dominates the Legislative Branch in almost every aspect of power and ability. Will dramatically decreasing the knowledge, experience, and ability of one (or both) of the chambers of Congress lead to more Legislative power, or will the constant, significantly higher number of rookies lead to even more domination by the Executive. At a time when our Executive is enacting "Czars" to oversee entire aspects of our lives, is it a good idea to enact something that will significantly increase that branch's power?

Keep in mind that in no business, profession or sport is a team of rookies better than a team of veterans. The rookies spark new discussions and bring new abilities and ideas, and they are vital to the growth and effectiveness of said business/profession/sport; but you need a few veterans to help them get their footing.

I fully support term limits - I think the jokers need to be thrown out much quicker than happens presently. I just can't support 4-year limits for all the reasons I discussed above. I CAN support 8- or 12-year limits, but until that 4-year limit ceases being a litmus test, I will not meet the "requirements" for being a GOOOH candidate and engaging in the selection process. And frankly, my life reads like an "everyman". You will want people like me involved.

-Kilborn

*If it comes to a vote, do you commit to vote for an amendment to the Constitution that calls for term limits for the U.S. House of Representatives of two terms or less? NO: term limits are decided by informed and engaged voters, just because there is abuse and such today does not mean we are content to allow it to continue unchecked. If someone needs to be removed from office they will be just as someone who champions the will of the people should remain in office. Term limits is not an option with me and I will vote no.

Joseph Danielek
Avondale, AZ

And *THAT* is infringement of a person's Right to Freedom of Speech #1, and #2 also infringes on a person's Right to be able to represent their region in government.

Minnie Miles “YES,,,,no more carrier politicians in the house!”

Why Minnie? I mean this statement makes for good rallying cry, but why do you believe in Term Limits. Really really think about what you believe and then come back and tell me all the reasons I should be BANNED for believing that Term Limits will not affect the change you’re seeking.

My point is I think we have the same goal. We are just disagreeing on the tool to use to dislodge the problem. So if you or anyone else would like to have an HONEST debate come on back and give me more than just talking points, rhetoric, and battle slogans.

bboyer, You pointed me to this thread from another. Here I am. (I read the first two pages ... and this last. I am frustrated....)

Reading this thread -- and specifically your posts -- is a tedium I am not willing to subject myself to. The only consistencies I see in your posts (on this an many other threads) is "bboyer is vehemently opposed to term limits, enjoys typing 'banned' in ALL CAPS, and is a prolific poster."

In the The House I Built thread you posted you would compile all your posts into a single thread. I presume you think this would make it easier for us to follow your arguments.

PLEASE DON'T DO THAT.

Instead I request you thoughtfully compose a single summary post of your arguments ... and point people like me to *that post.* I think this will help us ... and I really think it will help you. [If you have already done this, PLEASE point me to that post ... and ignore the rest of this post. If you have not done this, keep reading....]



Please read this paragraph as I am posting in a neutral tone: After reading dozens of your posts, I conclude you are clearly against Term Limits ... but you cannot clearly articulate why. Your arguments lack cohesiveness. (What I mean by that is, you seem to post with an "throw mud on the wall" approach. "Let's see if *this* device works to sway people to my POV." ... [Nope.] ... "Okay, here's my 'fairness' take." ... [Nope.] ... "Now let's try *this* emotionally charged argument." ... [Nope.] ... "Here's my Constitutional argument." ... etc.) The trouble I'm having is none of your rhetorical devices seems to be ... developed.

bboyer, in the first two pages of *this thread* you asserted the "purpose" of this thread to be two different things. (Neither of which was "quite" in line with the stated purpose of the OP.) Your arguments are all over the place.

I believe I've posted this enough ways to get my point across, so I won't beat this horse anymore.
_______________

If everyone on these boards was in 100% agreement I would not bother with the forums. I think differences of opinion are (usually) healthy and productive.

- KK