12-year term limits for National Office

People stay in office way too long. Over a hundred members have served for more than thirty-five years, forty members of Congress have served at least FORTY YEARS in their seats, with half a dozen over FIFTY years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service

Citizens born after they were first elected can have grandchildren in that amount of time.

Likewise, more than a dozen Supreme Court Justices have been in office more than thirty years, with William O. Douglas lasting more than 36! Way, way too long.

Conversely, Presidents (i.e. POTUS) are only elected twice before term limits kick in. This means that for half the time they are in office, they are unaccountable directly to voters. HALF! Think back on the presidencies of Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Nixon. When they at their worst? Last term. Because they didn't have to worry about being reelected.

So, I propose that, by amending the Constitution, all National Elected Offices be restricted (or in the case of POTUS, extended) to exactly 12 years concurrent. This would ensure much, much more turnover in Congress and the Supreme Court (thereby making them more representational and accountable). Ideally I'd like the Chief Justice to be an elected office as well (as the tie-breaker); the other 8 (12?) Justices would be still appointed for 12 years at a time, but there should be at least some direct representation by the people.

The President would also be more accountable, since we would have two chances to throw him/her out of office instead of just one. They'd only be directly unaccountable for a third of the time, instead of half. I also propose decoupling and staggering the Vice-Presidential election so that if the POTUS is screwing up, we can elect his main rival to VP.

So here's what my election cycle would look like (assuming term limits for all):

Year 00: New POTUS, all new House of Representatives, and 1st third of the Senate up for election.

Year 02: New Vice-President, New Chief Justice, the House, and 2nd third of the Senate.

Year 04: POTUS, the House, last third of the Senate.

Year 06: VP, Chief Justice, the House, and 1st/3rds Senate (last election for them)

Year 08: POTUS (last election), the House, 2nd/3rds Senate (last election for them).

Year 10: VP (last) & Chief Justice (last), the House (last election for '00 class), last 3rd Senate (last).

Year 12: New POTUS, new House and new 1/3 Senate (all from '00 election term limited).

Year 14: New VP, New Chief Justice, House, new 2nd third of the Senate.

Year 16: POTUS, House, new last third of the Senate.

And so on.

This amendment (12 years for all) would make the government more representative, dynamic, and, oddly, more contiguous because the VP and POTUS change power at different times. Seniority as a perk would be all-but-gone, and voters would be more inclined to send the best (or at least the most representative) officials to create laws respecting the will of the people.

Of course, I'd also like all laws to expire after 12 years as well...

Proposed Congressional Yearly Schedule

One of the major problems with Congress is that it's members spends too little time with their constituents and too much time in Washington DC creating more and more laws they don't even have time to read.

So, I think we should revise the yearly congressional schedule that keeps each house in session for a week (5 workdays) at a time every other week, encouraging it's members to return home on a regular basis. Here's what it might look like:


Month, Week, (Holiday), Session.

Jan wk1 (3rd or later) Joint Session.
Jan wk2 Congressional Recess.
Jan wk3 (MLK Jr. Monday, Jan 20 inauguration) Joint Session.
Jan wk4 US House.

Feb wk1 US Senate.
Feb wk2 US House.
Feb wk3 (Monday: President's day) Recess.
Feb wk4 US Senate.

Mar wk1 US House.
Mar wk2 US Senate
Mar wk3 US House.
Mar wk4 US Senate.

Apr wk1-2 (Spring District work Period) Recess.
Apr wk3 Us House.
Apr wk4 (Arbor Day) US Senate.

May wk1 Us House.
May wk2 US Senate.
May wk3 Us House.
May wk4 US Senate.
May wk5 (Memorial day) Recess.

Jun wk1 Us House.
Jun wk2 US Senate.
Jun wk3 Us House.
Jun wk4 US Senate.

July wk1 (Independence Day Work Period) Recess.
July wk2 Us House.
July wk3 US Senate.
July wk4 Us House.
July wk5 US Senate.

Aug wk1 Joint Session.
Aug wk2+ (Summer District Work Period) Recess.

Sept wk1 (Labor Day) Recess.
Sept wk2 Joint Session.
Sept wk3 Us House.
Sept wk4 US Senate.

Oct wk1 (Target Adjournment) Joint Session.
Oct wk2 (Columbus Day) Recess.
Oct wk3 Joint Session.
Oct wk4 (Campaigning) Recess.

Nov wk1 (Elections) Recess.
Nov wk2 (Veterans Day) Recess.
Nov wk3 Joint Session.
Nov wk4 (Thanksgiving) Recess.

Dec wk1 Us House.
Dec wk2 Joint Session.
Dec wk3 US Senate.
Dec wk4+ (Holidays) Recess.


US House of Representatives and Senate in session 21 weeks max each, usually on alternating weeks. Any week with a Federal Holiday was given off for both Houses, or attempted anyway. This should maximize input from citizens, and minimize influence from Washington DC culture, since Congressmen would rarely stay for the weekend.


Lurker

Better representation: Increase Congress to 1000

The number of Representatives in Congress has been fixed at 435 since 1913, not long after the creation of the Federal Reserve and the income tax. Now originally, there were 30,000 people for every House Rep. When the number 435 was reached, there were about 212,000 people for every official in the House.

Today, there are over 700,000 people represented by only 1 congressman.

Does that sound right to you? Certainly not the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Now, I'm not advocating that we go back to the original ratio of 1/30000. That would be unwieldy, since we have at least 300 million Americans, resulting in a House with 10,000 members! Yikes!

Now why the heck am I bringing this apportionment issue up? Well many of you know that I want turnover in my political systems. Fewer voters means fewer voters to change their minds. Not only that, if you really want fresh blood and to minimize the effect of tenure, just make the pool larger.

The arbitrary number 435 is not written into the Constitution. Its merely an Act of Congress, so all it would take to change it is another Act. With the Democrats back in power (and feeling overconfident), and another census on the way, now is the time to build a bigger House. We can sell it as a way to cement their power, as well as being more democratic.

1500. That is how many house of Representative I want. Yes, this is a huge increase, but hey, so is the change from our population back then to now. The U.K. has 650 Members of Parliament, and we vastly outnumber them. Shouldn't we be more representative than merry ol England? With 1500 members of the house, we would be back to the ratio from the 1910's, about 1 to 200000. Less than the ideal beginnings, but not so large that it becomes impossible to work with.

Running some numbers: Wyoming would get at least 2 or 3, South Dakota gets 4, Montana 4 or 5. Previously all states under a million residents only got 1 representative! If we added Guam, US Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas Islands, and/or American Samoa (all with under 200,000) they would still only get one Rep, and not be in the same boat as the current 7 smallest states. Other potential states like Puerto Rico or New Zealand would get about 20 and 21 respectively. But I would probably fix the # at 1500 even if we added new states, but only by Act, not by changing the constitution.

California and Texas would have about 184 and 122 respectively, but they have gigantic populations. Of course, I would encourage large states to separate and add additional senators, but that's a separate argument. But larger state should have more of a voice in national politics. Plus more voices = more dissention.

So that's the thrust of my argument. More information in the websites listed below. All I want to do is make the government reflect the will of the people, and that's much easier when Representative actually represent small, specific populations. Of course, I still want them to run at large...



Lurker


http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment
http://fruitsandvotes.com/?p=328