How long should House terms be?

with a 6 year term, but I think there should be a cumulative term limit on elected national office of any kind. In other words, you should only get to serve a maximum of 20 (just to pick a number) years in national office total. If you serve 6 years in the House and then 6 years in The Senate, you could go on to 2 Presidential terms, but if you've served 12 in the House and then 6 in the Senate, you'd be ineligible for anything else.

Seriously, I would think if they are good enough at what they do and god enough at campaigning to be elected that many times we ought to leave them alone to carry out their political career as long as the people will have them.

STILL be president....As a Canadian, let me tell you that is a wonderful thought...Instead of that belligerent, strutting moron in the White House, alienating and insulting world leaders we would have Clinton....Reasonable, intelligent, informed and consulting with world leaders....Wouldn't the world be in much better shape?? :shrug:

...I would think no term limits, and two-year terms would be pretty near ideal.

two term limit.

publicly funded.

I happen to like the current system here. The fact was that the House was supposed to move legislation quickly because they were up for reelection so fast, while the Senate (which held elections less often) would be slower.

I also CANNOT stand term limits. If people truly want the incumbent to leave office, then they should vote him out. That is what we have elections for.

I think the real problem here is that we don't have enough representatives (620,000 people being represented by just one person? I think we could expand the size of the House, maybe even doubling it). Also, we need, somehow, to create a better redistricting process. I don't know what Iowa does for its redistricting, but those are some of the fairest looking districts I've ever seen.

mndemocrat_29,

I think the real problem here is that we don't have enough representatives... I think we could expand the size of the House, maybe even doubling it).

Having worked in the legislative process, I know it to be incredibly inefficient as is. It is hard enough to get things done with 150 state representatives and 31 state senators, so I can imagine what it must be like with 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. Expanding the size of either house only makes the process more complex and increasingly inefficient.

I happen to agree with Publius and other authors on government when they urge limits to the size of a legislative assembly: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed55.htm">The truth is, that in all cases a certain number at least seems to be necessary to secure the benefits of free consultation and discussion, and to guard against too easy a combination for improper purposes; as, on the other hand, the number ought at most to be kept within a certain limit, in order to avoid the confusion and intemperance of a multitude. - Federalist #55

Sincerely,

the bigger an organization like the Congress (where you're trying to get work done within time limits while giving people meaningful opportunities to express their opinions) work best just at around the size Congress is.

Also, if it got much better, each individual would have such a hard time getting some face time, and developing a public persona, it would make the Congress unatractive to people who are trying to develop political careers. You'd probably never see another congressmen become senator or president.

purposefully to inhibit the entrenchment of "professional pols," to ensure that the peoples' reps actually represented their constituents and did not succumb to the corrupting influences of power and money.

"Career" politicians are a big part of the problem - not a solution.

We need to restore good governance and we can start by returning to the founders' concept of turnover turnover turnover in the House and we don't need "term limits" to do it - we need 100% public financing of campaigns. PERIOD.

that appears to not break up counties while redistricting. However Iowa is much easier to fairly redistrict than most states because:

1-Its population is pretty evenly spread out
2-Voting demographics are also pretty evenly spread out

one solution to stop the worst gerrymandering is to require that county borders be kept in districts whenever possible.

Having worked in a legislature, and knowing how inefficient the legislative process is, I do not think we remove people who have experience in the system can move things through it with relative ease.

however I believe Senate terms should be 4 years with no limit.

Some people, especially Goobergunch, will underatsn why I say this.

The answer can be found on page 1291 of the Almanac of American Politics 2004. Won't say more... :evilgrin:

It is hard enough to get a politician to vote for what is right and not what the polls say. With 2-year terms, members of the House are spending more time raising money and voting what the polls say than reading the bills and doing their jobs.

Incumbants already have a 96% reelection rate. They are also required to sell out to special interests to fund their campaigns that they are constantly in. Two years is too short and makes campaigning a constant job. Elect them and if they do a bad job boot them out. But give them time to do their jobs.

Mike