Increase Congressional terms to 3 years.

Jul 2009
516
71
Increase Congressional terms to 3 years:​
I don't believe that 2 year congressional terms of office has provided us with U.S. congressional representatives more responsive to their constituents, but rather they're more dependent upon their campaign contributors. I perceive increasing their terms to 3 years would be net beneficial to our nation.​
Although it will not significantly improve our House of Representatives, it would net improve it and net decrease financial contributors' powers to influence it.​
Respectfully, Supposn​
 
Last edited:

Djinn

Council Hall
Dec 2007
52,118
39,054
Pennsylvania, USA
How would increasing the term length of U.S. representatives from two years to three affect their dependence on campaign contributors?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
May 2012
70,344
14,238
By the wall
The two year term is there because the House is the voice of the people and we ought to have the right to change it that frequently.

Your point is valid with the Senate which is why they have longer terms but the House is meant to have very short terms.
 
Jul 2009
516
71
How would increasing the term length of U.S. representatives from two years to three affect their dependence on campaign contributors?
Djinn, its a 50% duration increase, within which members of the U.S. House of Representatives have opportunities to act in manners that may attract support from those with agendas other than that of their prior election's contributors.
often there are no feasible few remedies that will eliminate our great problems and difficulties, but rather there are opportunities to nibble away and reduce them.
I'm suggesting that this is such a case.

We've had more than 2 centuries of 2 year terms. Comparative to the U.S. Senate, are you in general satisfied with the U.S. House of Representatives historical or current performances?
Respectfully, Supposn
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
May 2012
70,344
14,238
By the wall
Djinn, its a 50% duration increase, within which members of the U.S. House of Representatives have opportunities to act in manners that may attract support from those with agendas other than that of their prior election's contributors.
often there are no feasible few remedies that will eliminate our great problems and difficulties, but rather there are opportunities to nibble away and reduce them.
I'm suggesting that this is such a case.

We've had more than 2 centuries of 2 year terms; are you in general satisfied with the U.S. House of Representatives historical or current performances?
Respectfully, Supposn
The House has been just fine, what exactly do you not like about their historical performance?
 
Jul 2014
39,350
10,535
midwest
And while we are at it, let's put in those long needed term limits.

If 8 years is enough for the president, surely 12 years is enough for Congress.

And don't call me Shirley...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Djinn

Council Hall
Dec 2007
52,118
39,054
Pennsylvania, USA
Djinn, its a 50% duration increase, within which members of the U.S. House of Representatives have opportunities to act in manners that may attract support from those with agendas other than that of their prior election's contributors.
often there are no feasible few remedies that will eliminate our great problems and difficulties, but rather there are opportunities to nibble away and reduce them.
I'm suggesting that this is such a case.

We've had more than 2 centuries of 2 year terms. Comparative to the U.S. Senate, are you in general satisfied with the U.S. House of Representatives historical or current performances?
Respectfully, Supposn
So... You're thinking that with three years at their disposal, they'd spend more time legislating and less time campaigning. I'm not sure that the extra year will be used in that way.

Personally, I'd rather see the implementation of ten-year term limits (and prohibitions on term renewal) for Supreme Court Justices. A lifetime appointment for any public official is ridiculous.
 
Mar 2015
30,515
15,916
Mad Prophet
So... You're thinking that with three years at their disposal, they'd spend more time legislating and less time campaigning. I'm not sure that the extra year will be used in that way.

Personally, I'd rather see the implementation of ten-year term limits (and prohibitions on term renewal) for Supreme Court Justices. A lifetime appointment for any public official is ridiculous.
Judicial reform is absolutly needed.

I used to think that a "good lawyer" was a lawyer that was good at what he did. It actually means that the judge likes him --
"how can my ruling benefit me while I serve on the bench?" Judges vote for the lawyer that they like about 80% of the time. The other 20% of the time, their conscience finely gets to them and they rule as they are supposed to.

Kind of like moderating a message board!!!
 
May 2012
70,344
14,238
By the wall
I disagree, vehemently. They have gotten NOTHING DONE for a long time.
You are referring to the really big pieces of legislation.

The House actually gets quite a bit done, they have to in order to ensure the government runs.

The founders did not intend for major legislation to get through easily, in fact they would probably be throwing a fit at how much we do manage to get done.

Its a misconception that the Founders wanted unity in Congress or for them to get along, they wanted the opposite in fact, they wanted it to be a very slow and deliberate process, heavily debated, with the end result forcing serious compromise from all sides.

There are plenty of writings by the founders that explain this.