Gerrymandering and term limits

[OrangeWayOfLife]

Would this not be the easiest way to get congresses approval back up? Gerrymandering is a complete crock, both red and blue, and we have congressman who have been in Washington longer than most dictators stay in power. How can congress have such a dismal approval rating yet retain the vast majority of it's members. If you want to see change, find candidates who oppose these two things, regardless of party, and with enough of them the corruption, greed, arrogance, and people who are putting their job in front of their country will begin to fizzle out. What is electing someone based on their homosexuality stance going to get you? They keep you so focused on these irrelevant issues while the keep getting elected despite their atrocious approval rating, voting based on social agendas is a sure fire way to keep things the way they are. It's up us, the voting populous, to find out who can make real change within the government and elect those candidates.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Term limits are dumb. If you don't like your representative, vote them out. Again, the electorate is the issue.

"Gerrymandering" is unavoidable. There have to be lines drawn. Lines have to be redrawn every so often to reflect changes in population/demographics. Anytime there is a change, there will be some perceived winner or loser in a zero sum game.

 

[Burhead]

Term limits are dumb. If you don't like your representative, vote them out. Again, the electorate is the issue.

"Gerrymandering" is unavoidable. There have to be lines drawn. Lines have to be redrawn every so often to reflect changes in population/demographics. Anytime there is a change, there will be some perceived winner or loser in a zero sum game.

I disagree on term limits. If term limits are required for the Presidency than it should follow the rest of the elected positions. I would like to see 6 years for the House and two term limit for Senators.

 

[OrangeWayOfLife]

Term limits are dumb. If you don't like your representative, vote them out. Again, the electorate is the issue.

"Gerrymandering" is unavoidable. There have to be lines drawn. Lines have to be redrawn every so often to reflect changes in population/demographics. Anytime there is a change, there will be some perceived winner or loser in a zero sum game.

Using gerrymandering to encompass only blue or red voters is exactly how these people keep getting re-elected. If congressional districts were divided into say, areas such as west, middle, and east Tennessee, candidates would have to try and gain votes from both parties and be more centralized on their stances. More comprimise would have to happen and we wouldn't be so politically divided.

 

[Toujours Pret]

Bawney Fwank had an interesting district geographically by the time he retired

 

[PKT_VOL]

I disagree on term limits. If term limits are required for the Presidency than it should follow the rest of the elected positions. I would like to see 6 years for the House and two term limit for Senators.

If there are reelections, the electorate has the power to vote their representatives out, including the POTUS. If they don't, that is their problem.

With that said, I am fine with one term representation. One of the biggest problems with our political system is that representatives have an eye towards reelection instead of governance. One term representation would eliminate that (at least horizontally).

In other words, a representative being in power for a long time doesn't intrinsically bother me. The constant campaign mode while actually serving as a representative instead of governing does.

 

[OrangeWayOfLife]

Bawney Fwank had an interesting district geographically by the time he retired

The Top Ten Most Gerrymandered Congressional Districts in the United States | Zombie

here is a list of ten congressional districts. This people literally get to pick who votes for them.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Using gerrymandering to encompass only blue or red voters is exactly how these people keep getting re-elected. If congressional districts were divided into say, areas such as west, middle, and east Tennessee, candidates would have to try and gain votes from both parties and be more centralized on their stances. More comprimise would have to happen and we wouldn't be so politically divided.

Anytime you draw lines you are gerrymandering. It's a zero sum game; someone is going to gain an advantage, someone is going to lose. The idea that your are going to objectively redraw lines is laughable.

 

[OrangeWayOfLife]

If there are reelections, the electorate has the power to vote their representatives out, including the POTUS. If they don't, that is their problem.

With that said, I am fine with one term representation. One of the biggest problems with our political system is that representatives have an eye towards reelection instead of governance. One term representation would eliminate that (at least horizontally).

In other words, a representative being in power for a long time doesn't intrinsically bother me. The constant campaign mode while actually serving as a representative instead of governing does.

You cant have one without the other. I would sacrifice kicking out good candidates at the end of their terms as to save us from life long politicians.

 

[Biopsyman]

when dems are in power they take bold new govt action
When the GOP are in power dems still take bold govt action

 

[golfballs]

Before we have term limits Id rather have intelligence thresholds for voters

 

[OrangeWayOfLife]

Anytime you draw lines you are gerrymandering. It's a zero sum game; someone is going to gain an advantage, someone is going to lose. The idea that your are going to objectively redraw lines is laughable.

The lines should be drawn to represent geographic communities, not a neighborhood on one side of town, a few people south of town, and that neighborhood on the east of town that will always vote the same way.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You cant have one without the other. I would sacrifice kicking out good candidates at the end of their terms as to save us from life long politicians.

The question hinges on reelection period. If we go to single term representation, I am on board. If not, the electorate can decide for themselves.

 

[PKT_VOL]

The lines should be drawn to represent geographic communities, not a neighborhood on one side of town, a few people south of town, and that neighborhood on the east of town that will always vote the same way.

A bunch of white noise theory until you put it in practice.

 

[OrangeWayOfLife]

when dems are in power they take bold new govt action
When the GOP are in power dems still take bold govt action

If you think its only the dems then you're not helping with the solution. Its both sides. Dems cry about bush's defense agencies and spending, a dem gets elected and the spending grows, yet they no longer want to control it then. The same thing goes on with GOP too. When Dems are in power, the government grows. When GOP are in power, the government grows.

 

[OrangeWayOfLife]

A bunch of white noise theory until you put it in practice.

Let me whip out my executive pen and sign that into action. If I'm the only one voting for candidates who want to fix congressional issues then it never will be put in to practice. All I can do right now is try to spread the idea to others.

 

[Velo Vol]

Term limits are dumb. If you don't like your representative, vote them out. Again, the electorate is the issue.

Correct.

"Gerrymandering" is unavoidable. There have to be lines drawn.

Redistricting is unavoidable, gerrymandering is not. You can have a system that creates much more randomized districts than the ones that are drawn up by political parties.

 

[OrangeWayOfLife]

Correct.



Redistricting is unavoidable, gerrymandering is not. You can have a system that creates much more randomized districts than the ones that are drawn up by political parties.

If term limits are so dumb and so easily fixed by just "voting them out" why do these people with a 10% approval rating keep holding office for decades? These two issues play hand in hand

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

If there are reelections, the electorate has the power to vote their representatives out, including the POTUS. If they don't, that is their problem.

No, it is everybody else's problem, and that is THE problem. Orrin Hatch, Barbara Boxer, Barbara McCulski, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore... the list is endless. Why can't they just do their public service and go back to the private sector?

 

[golfballs]

I'm for requiring presidential candidates to prove they meet the requirements of office

 

[Cdywolfe]

As someone else said… Just quit voting these dingleberries into office.

Not that it really matters anyways. Just sayin…

 

[OrangeWayOfLife]

As someone else said… Just quit voting these dingleberries into office.

That's the point of gerrandering!!!!! They pick their voters. People outside their districts have no voting power on who their representitive is. So they tailors these districts to keep votes coming their way.

 

[Biopsyman]

If you think its only the dems then you're not helping with the solution. Its both sides. Dems cry about bush's defense agencies and spending, a dem gets elected and the spending grows, yet they no longer want to control it then. The same thing goes on with GOP too. When Dems are in power, the government grows. When GOP are in power, the government grows.

GOP believes in Corporate welfare
DEMs believe in Social Welfare.. Social is more apparent when its in your face when people with sound mind and body living off the govt.

BOTH SUCK

 

[CSpindizzy]

Term limits are dumb. If you don't like your representative, vote them out. Again, the electorate is the issue.

"Gerrymandering" is unavoidable. There have to be lines drawn. Lines have to be redrawn every so often to reflect changes in population/demographics. Anytime there is a change, there will be some perceived winner or loser in a zero sum game.

Gerrymandering to the point it is currently IS avoidable. Leaving it to a partisan legislature or commission guarantees a system where the incumbents are protected and the party in power protects its interests.

If you don't like your representative - how many Republican voters would dare vote D to unseat a disliked incumbent? How many people willingly run against entrenched incumbents with millions in the bank? Statistically, the odds are in the incumbents' favor. More money means odds become even better.

 

[Velo Vol]

If term limits are so dumb and so easily fixed by just "voting them out" why do these people with a 10% approval rating keep holding office for decades? These two issues play hand in hand

The low approval ratings are for generic Congress, not the Congressperson the voters just voted in.

Incumbents have a number of advantages, helping them get reelected repeatedly.