Opinion Talk

By Perry Henry

October 6, 2007 6:16 AM | Link to this

Great idea, we are long past correcting what has become a self serving career.

By Joeventures

October 6, 2007 6:17 PM | Link to this

I’m not a big fan of term limits as a blanket restriction. As good as it is to have regular turnover, it’s also good to have institutional memory. Otherwise, there will be a huge problem in having a bunch of legislators who don’t understand how to legislate.

I am very much in favor, however, of limiting terms on leadership positions. Having the same person as a Speaker or committee chair for a decade or more is unacceptable. That is where turnover is more advantageous.

By Michael H. Smith

October 6, 2007 9:02 PM | Link to this

I’m absolutely against changing the Presidential terms and doing away with the Electoral College. I’m open to the idea of limiting the terms of Senators and Representatives including tightening rules on their lobbying Congress after they leave office.

I disagree with the Professor on what the founders wanted us to do. Before I would consider the second option provided in the Constitution I’d just as soon use the option of last resort provided in the Declaration of Independence to dissolve the bands that bind us as a common people. Where the Professor is intent to pursue what he calls fairness, it appears to me, this move to resort in convening a Constitutional convention would result to further polarize a nation into its’ various part. That being the case, why bother in a haphazard effort to divide the nation. Just simply have done with it, dissolve the union and let the states decided upon a centralized government of their sole or collective choice, if in fact, they wanted any form federalism at all to remain in existence. The first option in the Constitution, the amendment, should suffice in delivering us from whatever inadequacies that may exist from time to time. I see no value in re-convening a Constitutional convention, it would do more harm and serve to heat things up rather than cool things down or bring about a more perfect fairness.

On judges I wouldn’t change the lifetime terms of Supreme Court Justices, on other federal judges it is tempting to limit those terms. However, judges can be retired Jefferson provides proof to that end.

On the composition of the Congress, I see on the part of Professor a move to take us further away from a represent republic to obtain a puritanical democracy. Democracies are the most unfair systems of governance imaginable, where the majority rules and the minority will lose all voice beyond a dying mummer: As the adage goes, seven wolves and a lamb was discussing what they would have for dinner. Of course the majority chose mutton. That’s the fairness of a Democracy! The vary reason the Professor cites, the numerical imbalance, is the reason why we have a Senate so that the states with less population would have fairness in Congressional representation. Though, I would agree with the Professor in as much, where the Northern states as a geographical region do hold a superior number of Senators as does the South. However, I would not favor increasing the numerical size of the Senate, to do so would destroy the scenario that exist between the brew pot (the House) and the cooling saucer (the Senate). If anything I would favor restoring the appointment of Senators by the Governor’s of the states in repeal of the 17th amendment or possibly reducing the number of Senators to regions appointed by a collective of a region’s Governors. But in no way should numerical equivalence suit to serve the case of replacing the balance between majorities to minorities.

On national service the Professor and I probably come close to agreement. However as always the devil is in the details and it is probably on the finite points we would again find the differences between us.

By charles

October 7, 2007 6:42 AM | Link to this

Please! Leave the the greatest document ever written - after the Bible and the Magna Carta - alone. It’s worked pretty darn good thus far.

By Christopher W. Seely

October 7, 2007 8:40 AM | Link to this

I have one idea to add to the debate on how to improve the Constitution. Allow campaign funding from only a candidate’s district. Why should someone in New York be allowed to contribute to the representative from the Georgia’s 5th district? There is no “freedom of speech” issue because the Georgia Representative does not, by law, speak for anyone from New York. This might get some of the special interests out of where they do not belong!

By C.Martin

October 7, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Something needs to be done. Maybe change the election so it would be like the state government. Elect everyone seperate. President,Vice-President and so on.

By DLC

October 7, 2007 8:27 PM | Link to this

I like the Presidential/VP Term limits and changing House seats to run every 3 years (2 is too short). I would also consider limiting House and Senate seats if they were maxed out at 12 -15 years. I think a single term for members of Congress does limit institutional memory. However, a 2 or 3 term-limit for Senators and a 4 term (3 yrs each) limit for House members would still allow for new blood, but not seriously impact institutional memory.

Regardless, something MUST be done to get the money out of the process, and the election process should last no more than 3-4 months from start to finish. I believe that the ONLY way is public campaign financing. To get this funding and be a candidate, one would have to muster 10% support of the registered voters in that constituency ( i.e. a House seat would require 10% of that district, Senate seat 10% of the state, President - 10% of the country.) IF 10% is too high, make it 7%. That should allow for 3 to 6 candidates in each national race. Parties could play a role in that, but they couldn’t contribute money. Anyone violating this and taking even $1 from private donors gets immediately removed. The amount of funding for the primaries and runoff would be determined by the size of the office and number of constituents. Thus those running for President would get more than those running for the Senate, and those running for Senate would get more than those running for the House. Also make networks or even PBS provide equal “air-time” for all qualified candidates; let the government pay for it. All get equal exposure. It levels the playing field. I think public financed campaigns would cost a lot less and condense elections into a more efficient process. Some would argue, “I don’t want my taxes going to pay for elections.” Well, we’re already paying for them and like medical expenses the costs are going through the roof. Does anyone think if Corporation X donates to the DNC or RNC, they don’t build that into the price of their goods or services? The pubic pays no matter what! However, a public financed campaign is much more manageable than the current system which has totally gotten out of control. No matter how many laws you pass to reform the current mess that allows private financing, it’s a short time until someone finds some loophole. We DO have the best Congress money can buy ! I don’t believe this stops anyone’s “Freedom of Speech”. Any person has the same ability to get their message out and their platform. Set up a central site on the Internet where people can post their platforms and solicit voter support to get their names on the ballot and qualify. Would that limit anyone’s “Freedom of Speech”?? I don’t think so. That excuse has long been overstated and I think the current system limits people’s “Freedom of Speech” much more than one publicly financed. Currently, you must be rich, have lots of wealthy donors, or be a well-known personality to have any chance of gaining an office. Currently,**“Freedom of Speech” is NOT equal**, don’t kid yourself. It's time the government was returned to **"the people"**, and for more than just an election cycle.

By Don

October 7, 2007 9:08 PM | Link to this

AIPAC and The ADL oppose term limits therefore the issue is DOA just as Public Financed Campaigns which AIPAC and The ADL oppose!

By Charlie

October 7, 2007 9:32 PM | Link to this

Some of Sabato’s ideas have merit, but term limits is not one of them — at least not as a starting point. Some of our most effective House and Senate members were individuals whose long tenure allowed them to build useful experience and wisdom. The real problem — especially in the House — is that so few of the districts are genuinely competitive. I don’t have the numbers handy, but by some standards America isn’t much more democratic (with a small d) than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Vladimir Putin’s Russia; we can vote, but the outcome is often predetermined by the gerrymandering done by which ever party happens to control the state legislature. Solve that problem, and I think the need for term limits goes away.

By DLC

October 7, 2007 9:58 PM | Link to this

Gee Don, Why don’t we just let the AIPAC and The ADL decide everything. Sure they’d be tough issues to pass, so we just give up ? Glad George didn’t think that way ay Valley Forge. Sure they’re long shots, but IF we don’t do something we might as well just cave in to the corporations and lobbyists and forgo elections. They run everything now, and that why it’s a mess. Do you want a real voice or not ?

By Independent

October 8, 2007 7:25 AM | Link to this

Our government has become completely dysfunctional due to hyper-partisanship. Members of both parties march in lockstep with whatever their leadership demands. I would advocate eliminating party affiliation and requiring everybody to run as an independent. No pandering to your base during primaries to get the party nomination. No riding roughshod over the minority party to get legislation passed. No daily speaking points issues by party headquarters for members to parrot ad nauseum. Everybody must think for themselves and vote their conscience. Leadership positions in the House and Senate would be based on some combination of seniority and chamber-wide vote. Candidates would be forced to adopt more centrist (and representative) positions to appeal to a wider spectrum of voters. In my opinion, get rid of the current two-party system and most of the need for major Constitutional reform disappears.

By gttim

October 8, 2007 8:05 AM | Link to this

When the Republicans took over the house in 1994, one of the things they pushed was term limits. Funny how that never happened once they were the ones in office.

By Ken Johnson

October 8, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this

I am disappointed the Professor seems to being looking at symptoms and not causes. Term limits represent an attempt to deal with the underlying problems in seniority and rules in the Congress.

Chairman and seniority allow select members of Congress to be King Makers, dealing out select committee assignments like so much gold.

Members of Congress should be on committees based on peer selection and desire. Seniority should not be a factor. In addition, chairmanships should only be for a single term of Congress and chosen by peers not King Makers.

There are many other fundamentals, but on the surface the Professor does not seem interested in addressing the root causes but symptoms.

As to the Constitutional Convention, the main reason we have never had one, is there are no rules or limitations on actions. A convention can completely re-write our constitution. They would not be limited to “fixing” specific problems. That is such a no starter it is beyond of belief.

By Deborah

October 8, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

I would like to see the Electoral College done away with. If it weren’t for the EC, we wouldn’t have the idiot of a President we’ve been stuck with for nearly 8 years.

By Jimmy

October 8, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this

What this country needs is a viable third party. I am sick and tired of both parties. All they try to do is “one up” the other. No one talks about the real issues. Both chambers are filled with feckless career politicians that couldn’t care less about the people they serve. They say all the right things but fail to deliver. They pander to the lobbyist and special interest groups.

By KZ_Guy

October 8, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

Term limits are long over due. I don’t think our founding fathers ever envisioned someone spending 40 years in Congress. They never realized what a gold mine Washington would become. Term limits are needed because the number one priority for each party is to get re-elected. Don’t kid yourself into believing just limiting leadership postions will solve the problem. The bigwigs will put some puppet in charge and run Congress like they want.

By John

October 8, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

Term limits are not the answer to poor government. Remove the special interest money and replace that with public financing. Once the politicians are free to act in what they believe is the national interest as opposed to their supporters’ best interest, government should work more effectively and efficiently. To the extent that does not occur, the best term limit is to exercise your right to vote.

By Anonymous

October 8, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

Term limits may not be “the answer” to poor government, but they are at least a band-aid on the problem of unaccountable government.

Removing the influence of special-interest money is a worthy goal—and you can bet it’ll never happen in our lifetimes. Term limits might have to suffice until then.

By PoliticalMan

October 8, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

First, get the money of the wealthy out of compaigns. Second, we need proportional representation. Minority voices get no representation now. Third, make the Senate more representative. CA and Wyoming have the same number of senators? That is ridiculous. Term limits and length of term are irrelevancies.

By John

October 8, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this

Term limits without reforming campaign finance will exacerbate special interest legislation as politicians will still be indebted to their contributors but will have less time to do their bidding. Take the money out of politics and many of the problems we have will be solved. If more people demanded campaign finance reform and voted those legislators out of office that did not deliver meaningful campaign finance reform, it would happen in our lifetime. I still argue that the best term limit is our right to vote.

By bob

October 8, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

Politicalman complains that the minority is not heard and then states wyoming should not have as many members in the senate as CA? why have the house of reps?

Founding fathers did a fine job, modern day politicos are power hungry w******* using tax money to by votes.

By rj

October 8, 2007 9:36 PM | Link to this

Only an idiot would suggest having 140 senators and 1000 in the house. It would be chaos. Nothing would ever get done.

By Greg Girtman

October 9, 2007 2:35 AM | Link to this

It is about time someone actually started talking about this. My family has been saying it for at least 20 years now. The biggest problem with our poitical system is the fact that the number one priority of an elected offical is to get re-elected. If we had term limits then they might actually put the country first instead of their own greed for power. I am all for it!

By Steve

October 9, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this

The problem with the system is the voters. The voters themselves are no as idealistic but are pragmatic. They are voting for the politician which provides them with what they want whether it is positive for the country or not.

Politicians know all they have to do is patrionize the voters and the voters will vote for them.

Take the Fair Tax issue. These people believe the fair tax is good for the country. Do you know anyone who supports this tax plan who will not financially benifit from. The left has the same problem with immigration. The left knows that the vast majority of immigrants vote Democrat.

By CJ

October 9, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

Sabato’s heart is the right place, but his head is not. His proposed reforms won’t solve any more problems than term limits on Governors and Presidents have solved.

There are five solutions:

First — publicly-funded elections. Elections where candidate are beholden to the corporations and the wealthiest among us does not make for a very representative democracy.

Second — free advertising for candidates. The airwaves belong to the public, not the broadcast stations. So for the public’s benefit, each candidates should be able to use our airwaves to present their views without being limited by the size of their bank accounts.

Third — amending the Constitution shouldn’t be necessary, but since corporatists on the Supreme Court insist on interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment such that the word “person” includes corporations and other legal entities, we might need an Amendment defining a person as a living, breathing human being.

Fourth — runoff elections. As in 1992 and 2000, it’s ridiculous that a person can become President when a majority would have wanted the other guy, but didn’t get a chance to decide in a runoff. No person should hold office without a majority.

Last— lose the Electoral College (requires another Constitutional Amendment). For national elections, the popular vote should prevail (we might be able to achieve the same result with some Electoral College reforms that some states are considering, which would give their electoral votes to the winner of the nation’s popular vote rather than the individual state’s popular vote).

Saboto correctly identifies the symptoms, but unfortunately, he misdiagnosed the disease and provides the wrong prescription.

By Jeff

October 9, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

CJ:

Under your 5th proposal:

What happens if the entire population of a state that has this “EC goes to winner of National popular vote” method votes for one guy, yet the winner of the National popular vote is the other guy? Under this strategy, the EC votes for that state would go to the very guy that every single voter in that state did NOT want.

Seems to me that this is all about Democrats trying - once again - to thwart the will of the people.

By J. North Williamson

October 9, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this

I would propose a one term limit on the Senate and House to last 6 years. That way, there would be no need to waste good time campaigning for re-election and raising money for same. If the person elected cannot get his programs voted on in this time, the ideas must not be worth installing.

By marc

October 10, 2007 7:21 PM | Link to this

Term limits are needed in all elected offices. Even in the corporate world, there are mandatory retirement ages, to ensure that fresh ideas and new perspectives are there to move the company into the future. It’s silly to have 80 and 90 yr old men and women in office, who have been in office 20 plus years. Most are out of touch with the average citizen, an seem to only be good at providing “pork projects” to their representative areas because of their seniority regardless of its true economic value. We need fresh ideas and minds, to move the country forward.

By PHC H. Stan Boring, USN, (Ret.)

October 11, 2007 9:29 PM | Link to this

There is no need to tamper with the Constitution. We already have term limits. We simply have to become informd enough to vote out incompetents, and, conversely, to reelect those who are doing a good job. Internally, the House and Senate could limit committee chaairmanships, as the Republicans did in 1994. Complete disclosure of the source of campaign contributions is the only reform needed to election law.

By bboy

October 12, 2007 7:04 PM | Link to this

We now have a term limit of 8 years for the president, why should we not have a term limit of 8 years for the congress. At least we could weed out the life time congress people. Limit everyone to 8 years.

By Gordon

October 13, 2007 9:45 PM | Link to this

The founders meant for the states to have more power than they do now. We should NOT dilute the power of states by eliminating the electoral college or by determining the number of senators based on population. That is what the House of Representatives is for. The Constitution as it is written is fine - we just need to start following it. The 10th amendment (the Federal govn’t has no power except those specifically enumerated) is completely ignored.

By Bud Wiser

October 14, 2007 8:45 AM | Link to this

Do the pigs walk away voluntarily from the trough? Do the welfare rats give their government checks to charity? Does Britney Spears ever say “No, I’ve had enough publicity, thank you”? Do addicts yank the needles out of their arms because they have been high enough times yet?

You have to be kidding me if you think the Congress would ever vote terms limit on themselves, not when they can gorge themselves on our tax money, and fatten the wallets of themselves and their families and friends on lobby cash. What a dreamer.

The reality is that those in America with the right to vote are themselves fat, lazy, stupid and uneducated sheep, and the herders in Washington have them right where they want them. How many of you out there reading this know that the Founding Fathers first decided that only landowners had the right to vote, because if taxation issues ever arose, they were the only ones who should have the right to vote on it, because they were the only ones who had something of value (land) that was worth taxing? If this is news to you, consider yourself part of the herd.

Politicians will never disengage themselves from what they consider ‘free’ money, because they would have to go out and get a real job. Try this: go to your neighborhood Golden Corral and tell the patrons: “Food here is free for life, but we are now going to have a voice vote to limit your stay to two hours…..all in favor say AYE…..”; see if you make it out of the building alive.

You know though, that’s what you have to love about academicians - they have no grip on reality because they also have never worked at a real job for a living. There is a saying; those that can, DO….those that cannot, TEACH….those that cannot teach, go into politics, or write for the AJC.

By Dusty

October 14, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

I gather that Prof. Sabato wrote his thesis on “How to Change the Constitution”.

Please leave our Constituion ALONE. It is just fine, thank you. We don’t need a professor (who needs to get something published every year) telling us to change what has worked for hundreds of years.

We have VOTERS who can change the Presidency and the Congress everytime the polls are opened. Leave it to them. They are the ones who make this country great, not a handful in Washington.

By Kay from Atlanta

October 16, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

With term limits and an increased number of members - how will we afford to give each former member 100% of their salary in retirement benefits? Government was not meant to be lifetime job. So why do they get any retirement benefits? Give them social security and see how fast the system gets fixed.

By lopro

October 17, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

As a political scientist, I think Mr. Sabato is a great political mind and I agree with his House term limit scenario and increase in years of service due to the expanded campaigning season.

I also agree with slightly increasing the number Represenatives, but not to 1,000. That would only increase the amount of pet projects or “pork” that we currently have. It is hard for one representaive to line up too many projects as this takes a lot of time by him/her and staff. More representatives and staff would be able to allocate more special project funding back home.

However, due to population increases it is acceptable to have some increase in representation, otherwise very soon we will have one representative for every million people.

I don’t know about the increase in Senators. I think 100 works fine without past executives mingling their way in their without elections. I think this idea is sloppy coming from Sabato. Also, I think his take on the presidential term limits is just an idea birthed from having an largely unpopular president at the moment. There is no need for any changes in the presidency other than keeping Senators or other elected officials from campaigning unless they give up their seat. Otherwise, they are not doing their jobs at all while being out of the office for two years on a tour bus.

By lopro

October 17, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

Of course getting Congress to vote any legislation limiting their own personal power is impossible so this debate is moot.

If real change is to occur, the States will be the ones to initiate it. The States will need to get tough with the federal government to reign in their Constitutional rights that have been stolen over the years.

We are seeing the result of federal control gone awry here in Georgia with the control over our water for a few damn mussels that nobody is ever allowed to even see (much less eat!)

By zenpiper

October 18, 2007 12:37 AM | Link to this

This is all moot. It would take a Constitutional convention to address any changes and that is unlikely to happen any time soon. Whether the ideas have merit or not is, at this point, beside the point.

By ezell brown

October 18, 2007 11:29 PM | Link to this

Lenord Pitts your guest columnist on a Noose only a prank? History begs to differ talked of the horror of the history of rope talked of the out rage in the death of Mary Turner a black woman killed May 5 1918 in Valdosta burned alive and split open.This was no out rage! the out rage was the crime for witch she died. Mary Turner you see came to Valdosta looking for help save what was left of her family and frinds. Marys crime, Unwise Remarks. Mary was armed with the names of the men who killed Hays Turner her husband on May 17 in Brooks County. She also could solve the muder of Eugene Rice, May 17, an unknown man beaten and burned so bad his name is lost to history. Only the date of his death is known May 17 1918 in Brooks. And William Head a good man who took her to Valdosta only to hanged on the night of May 17, 1918. Mary would not be silent. Mary would not stop trying to give the names to any who would listen until she fell silent upside down in her noose. Mary Turner died so that I could live. As she went south with William Head she let it be known why she was running. The childern of Hays and Mary Turner would run north as would the childern of William Head and Eugene Rice. My Great Grand Mother gave her life for all of us. What Love! The Out Rage is that In Brooks County this was the way blacks were treated starting with the hanging of Samuel Taylor in 1894 and ending with Lee Robinson Jr in 1921. The Noose is a reminder to me that if left hanging in the tree of ignorance, it will be used again. If Marys crime was unwise remarks let not the noose in which she died be come the prank that dooms us. Ezell [Great Grand Son of Mary and Hayes Turner]