Cancel the Midterms

[FBaggins]

By Tuesday night about 90 million Americans will have cast ballots in an election that’s almost certain to create greater partisan divisions, increase gridlock and render governance of our complex nation even more difficult. Ninety million sounds like a lot, but that means that less than 40 percent of the electorate will bother to vote, even though candidates, advocacy groups and shadowy “super PACs” will have spent more than $1 billion to air more than two million ads to influence the election.

There was a time when midterm elections made sense — at our nation’s founding, the Constitution represented a new form of republican government, and it was important for at least one body of Congress to be closely accountable to the people. But especially at a time when Americans’ confidence in the ability of their government to address pressing concerns is at a record low, two-year House terms no longer make any sense. We should get rid of federal midterm elections entirely.

...snip...

But the two-year cycle isn’t just unnecessary; it’s harmful to American politics. The main impact of the midterm election in the modern era has been to weaken the president, the only government official (other than the powerless vice president) elected by the entire nation. Since the end of World War II, the president’s party has on average lost 25 seats in the House and about 4 in the Senate as a result of the midterms. This is a bipartisan phenomenon — Democratic presidents have lost an average of 31 House seats and between 4 to 5 Senate seats in midterms; Republican presidents have lost 20 and 3 seats, respectively.

The realities of the modern election cycle are that we spend almost two years selecting a president with a well-developed agenda, but then, less than two years after the inauguration, the midterm election cripples that same president’s ability to advance that agenda.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/opinion/cancel-the-midterms.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Makes a lot of sense, but...

there's that Amendment thing.

[FBaggins]

4. Yep...

... and the fact that whining about something that might make things better for us today... is often not in our best interest tomorrow.

I'm sure that we'll love midterms the next time there's a republican president along with a red congress

[world wide wally]

2. Better yet... Outlaw gerrymandering

And have a "consistent" ratio of representatives to citizens. Not a system where one state gets one rep for every 200,000 people and another state only gets one rep for every 500,000.

[FBaggins]

3. There's already a consistent ratio (about 725k / rep)

The only cases where it's inconsistent is when a state's population is below that point (rare), or not quite high enough to receive two representatives (a handful).

As far as outlawing gerrymandering... that's a tough one. Few of the alternatives have been shown to give us better results.

Most "unbiased" standards could end up worse then the current system.

[Roland99]

23. Doesn't help. FL passed the FAIR Districts ballot measure a few years ago.

nothing came out of that...even after a FL judge ripped the GOP to shreds over their BS:

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2014/07/florida_gop_made_a_mockery_of_fair_redistricting_amendment_judge_rules.php

[YarnAddict]

5. If this had been done in 2006

Rs would have had control of the Congress for both of bush's two terms. Baaaaaddddd idea. There are times when mid-terms are needed to send a message to the party in charge, and times when a Prez needs be be reined in.

[hedgehog]

6. Eliminate the Senate instead.

Last time I checked, the 10 smallest states together had the same population as California, but California only has 2 Senators to their 20. In addition to the incredible disparity in population size, we have a situation in which it is very easy to buy an election in the lowest population states. Mining and oil interests in the West end up having an inordinate influence on the entire United States.

[GGJohn]

7. And replace it with what?

Just because they're smaller and less populated that CA, NY, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the same representation, otherwise, the larger states would dominate.

[hedgehog]

8. "the big states will dominate"

that's rhetoric left over from the First Constitutional Convention, and I think a case can be made that it was a cover for "we want to make sure that more populous states can't end slavery in less populous states". I think in this day of international corporations, it's a meaningless phrase.

I think the real divide these days isn't among the states but between rural and urban populations. Here in Republican Upstate New York, I'm always hearing that New York City is the tail that wags the dog. In point of fact, we face much the same standstill as the Federal government - a Republican controlled upper house and a Democratic controlled lower house. The difference here is that the leaders get together and make deals about how the state should be run. Occasionally, the Governor is consulted.

My in-laws live in a rural area of Erie County. I've spent over 30 years hearing all about how Buffalo dominates the county and spends all the tax money. Given that most of the tax dollars are generated on Buffalo and the suburbs, and that that's where the most people are, isn't that the way it should be?

Ultimately it all comes down to a question - are we one person, one vote or not?

[GGJohn]

9. All I can tell you is that the more populous states would dominate the govt.

leaving the smaller states having to adhere to policies that may not fit their lifestyle.

That old addage of What works in CA, NY, may not work in WY, MT.

[hedgehog]

10. I think that already happens, in the sense that the rules for the use of

Federally owned land is dictated by a Federal government dominated by urban dwellers. It already happens in the sense that every state has to abide by the ACA. Again, laws regarding highway speed limits and drinking ages are more or less set by populous states by regulating requirements for Federal dollars.

As I said, I think the one lifestyle policy that the small states wanted to reserve to themselves was legalized slavery. That;s a moot point now. I'd like an example of a policy dictated out of New York that would not fly in Montana that is not a matter of Democrat vs Republican.

On the other hand, initiatives favored by most people in the country that pass the House easily are often blocked by Senators from small states. It's why Obama couldn't get much done during his first term despite having a nominal majority in both houses.

Small states such as Delaware and South Dakota wanted to attract big banks by allowing high interest rates on credit cards, and those loose limits have been imposed on the rest of us.

Eliminate the Senate, and we'll see coalitions of representatives of rural and urban areas more than of individual states.

[Liberal Veteran]

15. In a sense that should be the goal.

The first three words of the constitution are "We the people", not "We the land".

California has 66 times the population of Wyoming yet equal representation in the Senate. In a real sense, a Wyoming resident gets 66 times the voting power of a California resident in the Senate.

I am not from either, but that seems unbalanced to me. There has to be a way to protect the interest of less populous states (and
vice versa) while at the same time not diluting or inflating the vote of the population into absurdity.

[GGJohn]

16. If a way could be to protect the interests of the smaller states,

I would be all for that solution, the trick is finding one that everyone would agree on.

[hedgehog]

18. I think the solution is already in place -

the Federal government controls areas that affect all citizens, the state governments control local/regional issues.

Is it fair that Senators from small states can hold the rest of the country hostage over major bills? How much pork was shoehorned into the ACA to get the votes to allow passage?

Again, how would larger states hurt smaller states if the Senate was eliminated?

[GGJohn]

20. Ok, that's sounds good, but we can't have just the House,

that, IMO, would be disaster, so what would be a good alternative?
Maybe a revamp of the House and the way it operates? Would that take a Constitutional change?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. Translation: Americans expected Obama to correct 10-15 years of bad economic policies

by Bush I-Clinton I and II-Bush II in less than two years. We got angry and impatient that he couldn't do that fast enough, so we elected incompetent assholes in 2010. Then got angrier in 2012 that Obama couldn't implement his agenda because the incompetent assholes that got elected in 2010 were incompetent assholes. HUH?? So now we're even angrier in 2014, and what will we do? Elect even MORE incompetent assholes.

Does that make any fucking sense at all, people? No! It doesn't! None at all!

[GGJohn]

13. Classic case of insanity,

the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

[Filibuster Harry]

14. good idea and respectable responses

I would not cancel the midterms but I do think that term limits are needed and I think the american people need to get a petition with signatures so it 1) goes to the White House and/or 2) can enough signatures get in on a ballot in every state?

The founding fathers did not intend our representatives to be career politicians. The president is only allowed 2 terms (8 years) so why should senators or congressmen be allowed to have more?? Maybe if term limits were implemented then maybe our representatives would / could work with one another for the better of this country, spend more time at work (instead of this ridiculous 92 days in 2014) (really? And at our expense) and not have to focus on elections as often because their term would be up.

Just a thought: for beginners: 12 year terms which include 2 terms as Senator; 6 terms as house ; or combination of 1 term as Senator and 3 as house.

[reformed_military]

17. Term Limits...

would have to be a constitutional amendment.

See U.S. Term Limits, Inc v Thornton.

States cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of Congress stricter than those in the Constitution.

[hedgehog]

19. I read a history of the Randolph Scandal which occurred in Virginia in the early 1800's -

it was clear that the Congressional offices were handed around among a small group of rich plantation owners like a plate of hors d'ouvres, each taking a turn as a Representative. It was clear to me that these Founding Fathers meant the office of Representative to be reserved to white men like themselves.

I have no problem with career politicians - people who've had a chance to learn from the inside how legislatures and governments actually function. What I have a problem with is politicians who become millionaires while in office, and who vote for the interests of the very wealthy and/or corporations.

[Reter]

21. How would you go about doing this?

Constitutional Amendment is the only sure way (a ConCon is out of the question).

[FBaggins]

22. I wouldn't

I just found it interesting - largely as a commentary on how people often want to change the rules of the game when they can't get their way politically. For instance... while hoping that we never have to find out... just wait until there's a republican in the White House and a red Senate. People here will flood back to the pro-fillibuster side (that I never left).

You are correct of course. It would take an amendment and will never happen (nor should it)