politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'd double check term limits. We could just as easily create a chain of debauchery as we lose all experienced politicians that might be able to help. There would only be more incentives to line your own pockets when you only got 4 years. I hate seeing the extremely elderly pretend its 1978 too but I don't think term limits are the answer. I think we need more transparency on politicians, what they represent, their past actions (especially at local levels those people are nearly invisible), and most importantly we need to slit Lobbying's throat and drain all the blood just to be sure.
Everyone assumes term limits would be something super low like 4 or 8 years. In reality, it’d probably be something like 32 years, which is 8 terms. Still long enough to get a good career, but it ensures that someone entering the senate in their 30 or 40’s will be retiring at a reasonable age. Because the current problem is that everyone should’ve retired twenty or thirty years ago.
That I can get behind. Even retiring at around 55. But 70s+? Nah.
Politicians aren't the experts, that's what they have a staff for.
Oh wow I never thought about this. I’m all for term limits but first time I’ve seen this argument.
Perhaps an age limit and physical exam test limit is better?
Airline pilots have a hard age limit. I would think you would want the people running the country to be at least as sharp as a pilot.
You're all for term limits but this is the first time you've seen this argument?
Sounds like you have absolutely no familiarity with the issue and haven't looked into it or thought about it nearly enough to have a strong opinion.
Well, we’re I’m from originally, we have term limits for politicians of all levels so I have never thought about it.
Thanks for calling me out though.
That's how you'll end up with a list of doctors who get a nice pay raise (whether on or off the books) to rubber-stamp candidates through the exam requirement. Honest physicians who are willing to disqualify will have to be mindful of possible retribution as well.
Then it should be an objective test. Familiarity with current events, geography, physics, calculus, micro and macro economics. Final exam of 101 courses would be sufficient. 80% or higher and you get to take office, otherwise the next highest voted politician gets a shot at it.
A board of representatives from the 10 largest public colleges gets to write, administer and grade the test.
If the test is mainly looking for signs of dementia or other mental declines, the test takers themselves could write the test and all vote on it before taking it.
Here’s my solution:
Get rid of the senate. It is the US aristocracy, anti democratic, and serves no useful purpose.
Require the house to have more votes (or a supermajority, whichever is less) to repeal a law than were needed to pass it. Edit: this reduces the effect of instability that removing the Senate would produce, while allowing the House to respond quickly to injustice.
Require the House to pass a budget once per term. If they (and the president) can’t pass a budget, the session ends, and they all (including the president) go up for re-election.
I’d say congress should pick the president, but that would tip my hand that I think Parliament is a better system of government.