US politicians and terms, becoming president. imma confused !

Do all US politicians serve only two terms, like the President has to? For example can a member of the House/Senate be a member for longer than two terms.

If not does that mean that your Presidents come to power with, at most, 8 years experience of being a frontline politician?

also

Does a Presidential candidate have to come from Congress or can anyone, provided they can afford it, run?



Apologies if i am using some incorrect terms i'm not 100% on the setup in the USA

Well, Nader runs for president, and he's not in Congress.

There are no term limits for Congress.  The senate has 6 year terms, the house 2 years.  The president serves a four year term with a maximum of 2 terms (not consecutive either, total).

I am in favor of term limits in congress, or at the very least, primary challenges to incumbents.

Do all US politicians serve only two terms, like the President has to? For example can a member of the House/Senate be a member for longer than two terms.

The 22nd amendment to the US constitution that imposed the 2 presidential term limit was passed in 1951, so it's relatively new.  There are currently no such limits for senators or representatives, although there is the occasional grumbling for similar term limits.  State and local governments may have term limits for certain positions, otherwise term limitations are enforced by the voters (as the democrats just found out the hard way).

If not does that mean that your Presidents come to power with, at most, 8 years experience of being a frontline politician?

also

Does a Presidential candidate have to come from Congress or can anyone, provided they can afford it, run?

Anyone who meets the age and citizenship requirements prescribed in the US constitution may run for president (or any other elected office).  No previous experience is required, but is recommended.  In fact, some Americans feel that too much previous political experience can be a bad thing.

Politics are easy to understand.


Voters are stupid and want things that usually contradict each other: Lower taxes and more services.  More, high paying jobs and cheaper goods and services.
They then listen to the politicians and decide which one has the best moral values, is the most christian, and is part of the party they agree with.  It should also be noted that most voters feel that politicians are untrustworthy and greedy.... Except the person they're voting for... maybe.
Voters also fail to understand government and believe politicians when they say stuff like "I'm going to clean up Washington" or "I will lower the taxes as president".  Neither of these things are possible for one person since our legal system requires a majority in congress to agree on something before it happens.  Essentially the majority of senators would have to agree to "Clean up Washington" before it could actually be done. 
Politicians, one elected, do their best to STAY elected (it is their job after all) so they do what they can to make their supporters happy even at the cost of other people.  Ear Marks are a prime example.
When voters are unhappy they always blame the party in power regardless of who it is or if they had anything to do with the problem.
At the end of the day, few things change and people are still unhappy.

Repeat every 2 years.

I am in favor of term limits in congress, or at the very least, primary challenges to incumbents.

I disagree with term limits.  The president has a limited maximum time in office simply because it is inherently such a powerful office, and having too much power for too long will eventually corrupt almost anyone.  But a member of Congress is simply a representative of their people.  They have no actual "power", per se.  What's wrong with the voters consistently liking the representation of one person in particular?

Also, what do you mean by "primary challenges to incumbents"?  Anyone is allowed run in a primary, regardless of the incumbent's party.  It's just that very few politicians have won over an incumbent in a primary before.

Politics are easy to understand.


Voters are stupid and want things that usually contradict each other: Lower taxes and more services.  More, high paying jobs and cheaper goods and services.
They then listen to the politicians and decide which one has the best moral values, is the most christian, and is part of the party they agree with.  It should also be noted that most voters feel that politicians are untrustworthy and greedy.... Except the person they're voting for... maybe.
Voters also fail to understand government and believe politicians when they say stuff like "I'm going to clean up Washington" or "I will lower the taxes as president".  Neither of these things are possible for one person since our legal system requires a majority in congress to agree on something before it happens.  Essentially the majority of senators would have to agree to "Clean up Washington" before it could actually be done. 
Politicians, one elected, do their best to STAY elected (it is their job after all) so they do what they can to make their supporters happy even at the cost of other people.  Ear Marks are a prime example.
When voters are unhappy they always blame the party in power regardless of who it is or if they had anything to do with the problem.
At the end of the day, few things change and people are still unhappy.

Repeat every 2 years.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.  After last night, it looks like it took this country less than two years to forget about life under Bush.  Lots of people, myself included, like to criticize politicians for being ineffective and dishonest, but considering the state of American politics, I'm beginning to wonder if I can really even blame them.  Take the 1984 election.  Mondale admitted he would raise taxes, but claimed that he was just being honest, because Reagan had claimed that he wouldn't raise taxes.  Mondale lost the election by a landslide.  And then, lo and behold, Reagan raised taxes!

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on November 03, 2010, 11:21:56 AM

I am in favor of term limits in congress, or at the very least, primary challenges to incumbents.

I disagree with term limits.  The president has a limited maximum time in office simply because it is inherently such a powerful office, and having too much power for too long will eventually corrupt almost anyone.  But a member of Congress is simply a representative of their people.  They have no actual "power", per se.  What's wrong with the voters consistently liking the representation of one person in particular?

Also, what do you mean by "primary challenges to incumbents"?  Anyone is allowed run in a primary, regardless of the incumbent's party.  It's just that very few politicians have won over an incumbent in a primary before.

Members of Congress are bought out and owned by the major lobbies, millions and millions are spent by corporations on lobbying alone.  The recent healthcare bill, was largely written by a wellpoint employee who left the company to go work as a congressional aid.

What I mean by primary challenges, is if you have a democratic incumbent running for reelection, another democrat should have the option of running against the incumbent in a primary.  This is largely not allowed within a party, however a few PAC's are calling for this and we actually had a few primary incumbent challenges this year.

The problem is, in a state like Maryland, which is mostly Dem, we have a democratic incumbent senator Barbara Mikulski(sp?).  Because it is extrememly unlikely she will be defeated by a republican, she literally never has to campaign in Maryland or answer to her constituants.  This basically allows corruption to breed, and if there was a democrat challenge I think it would act as a check to that.

Harry Reid had a primary challenge this time which he barely survived.  He's probably one of the most corrupt people in congress today, but who want's to get rid of him if NV only other choice is Sharon Angle.

What I mean by primary challenges, is if you have a democratic incumbent running for reelection, another democrat should have the option of running against the incumbent in a primary.  This is largely not allowed within a party, however a few PAC's are calling for this and we actually had a few primary incumbent challenges this year.

The problem is, in a state like Maryland, which is mostly Dem, we have a democratic incumbent senator Barbara Mikulski(sp?).  Because it is extrememly unlikely she will be defeated by a republican, she literally never has to campaign in Maryland or answer to her constituants.  This basically allows corruption to breed, and if there was a democrat challenge I think it would act as a check to that.

What are you talking about?  None of that is true at all.  On the subject of Mikulski, look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Maryland,_2010#Democratic_primary

And Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent senator in Alaska, actually lost the primary election to another Republican.

Personally, I'm in favor of a legally binding "none of the above" candidate (a.k.a. a protest vote) for those times when even a third party candidate is not enough to properly express my displeasure with the available choices.

Personally, I'm in favor of a legally binding "none of the above" candidate (a.k.a. a protest vote) for those times when even a third party candidate is not enough to properly express my displeasure with the available choices.

You can do that.  If none of the options are filled in, the vote counts against all the candidates for that office.  Or else you could just write in a celebrity if you felt like making a joke.

I know that technically this could never happen but what do you think the procedure be if, say , 60% of voters nominated someone eligible to be president but  had no desire to be president -- would he be obliged to take the presidency anyway then resign?

I know that technically this could never happen but what do you think the procedure be if, say , 60% of voters nominated someone eligible to be president but  had no desire to be president -- would he be obliged to take the presidency anyway then resign?

Impossible. The electoral college prevents such a thing.

Congress definitely needs term limits, especially since they get to draw their own districts (in many places) practically assuring their reelection.

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on November 03, 2010, 02:12:14 PM

What I mean by primary challenges, is if you have a democratic incumbent running for reelection, another democrat should have the option of running against the incumbent in a primary.  This is largely not allowed within a party, however a few PAC's are calling for this and we actually had a few primary incumbent challenges this year.

The problem is, in a state like Maryland, which is mostly Dem, we have a democratic incumbent senator Barbara Mikulski(sp?).  Because it is extrememly unlikely she will be defeated by a republican, she literally never has to campaign in Maryland or answer to her constituants.  This basically allows corruption to breed, and if there was a democrat challenge I think it would act as a check to that.

What are you talking about?  None of that is true at all.  On the subject of Mikulski, look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Maryland,_2010#Democratic_primary

And Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent senator in Alaska, actually lost the primary election to another Republican.

As I said at the end of the first paragraph, this election did see several primary challenges, I was aware of the one in alaska.  As for the Primary Challenge to Senator Barb, well I was smoking crack on that one.  I didn't really see one comercial from her, nor any signs so I presumed she wasn't campaining.

My suggestion is to make such traditions more standard than they are, this year was a great start, but I want to see the tradition of an incumbant automatically being given their parties nomination go away totally.  It compells our representatives to have to come back and defend their record to their base or else risk being overthrown in a primary, like what happened in Alaska.  To me that is a great compromise to having term limits.

One thing I have considered about Congress is the repeal of the 17th amendment.  It's actually one of the only interesting ideas that has come from the Tea Party.

Considering the purpose of the 17th amendment has completely failed, and in fact may even be worse because of it, it may be worth researching, but I would only support it's repeal if there was a lot of evidence that it would have a positive effect on corporate ownership in the senate.

One thing I have considered about Congress is the repeal of the 17th amendment.  It's actually one of the only interesting ideas that has come from the Tea Party.

Considering the purpose of the 17th amendment has completely failed, and in fact may even be worse because of it, it may be worth researching, but I would only support it's repeal if there was a lot of evidence that it would have a positive effect on corporate ownership in the senate.

Yeah but think of how easy it would be for the political parties to keep power.  With the current system there's a chance of an independent or someone who is a dem/rep but isn't really following the party that closely.  Without the 17th amendment, the controlling power in the state's legislature would be able to put in a party puppet without difficulty.

Of course that usually happens anyway but that's only because political parties fund candidates and candidates think they need funding every election year.

Quote from: markjo on November 03, 2010, 08:02:30 PM

Personally, I'm in favor of a legally binding "none of the above" candidate (a.k.a. a protest vote) for those times when even a third party candidate is not enough to properly express my displeasure with the available choices.

You can do that.  If none of the options are filled in, the vote counts against all the candidates for that office.  Or else you could just write in a celebrity if you felt like making a joke.

That's not quite how a "none of the above" candidate would work. 

How would a binding "None of the Above" ballot option work?

    In any state with a binding "None of the Above" ballot option, the list of candidates for each office would be followed by the votable line "None of the Above; For a New Election", or something similar.  If the that option gets more votes than any candidate for the office, then no one is elected to the office; instead, a follow-up by-election with new candidates must be held to fill that office, until a candidate wins a plurality of votes among all other candidates including "None of the Above."

That's how it works in my state.