NYT-Cancel mid-term elections

Cancel the Midterms

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

By DAVID SCHANZER and JAY SULLIVANNOV. 2, 2014

DURHAM, N.C. — 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.

There are few offices, at any level of government, with two-year terms. Here in Durham, we elect members of the school board and the county sheriff to terms that are double that length. Moreover, Twitter, ubiquitous video cameras, 24-hour cable news and a host of other technologies provide a level of hyper-accountability the framers could not possibly have imagined. In the modern age, we do not need an election every two years to communicate voters’ desires to their elected officials.

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.

(You know, maybe it is the wisdom of the people not to concentrate power in one person. Ya think? - AF)

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.

These effects are compounded by our grotesque campaign finance system. House members in competitive races have raised, on average, $2.6 million for the 2014 midterm. That amounts to $3,600 raised a day — seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. Surveys show that members spend up to 70 percent of their time fund-raising during an election year. Two years later, they’ll have to do it all again.

Much of this money is sought from either highly partisan wealthy individuals or entities with vested interests before Congress. Eliminating midterms would double the amount of time House members could focus on governing and make them less dependent on their donor base.

Another quirk is that, during midterm elections, the electorate has been whiter, wealthier, older and more educated than during presidential elections. Biennial elections require our representatives to take this into account, appealing to one set of voters for two years, then a very different electorate two years later.

(Oh, gee, I should have guessed... Mid-term elections are racist. - AF)

There’s an obvious, simple fix, though. The government should, through a constitutional amendment, extend the term of House members to four years and adjust the term of senators to either four or eight years, so that all elected federal officials would be chosen during presidential election years. Doing so would relieve some (though, of course, not all) of the systemic gridlock afflicting the federal government and provide members of Congress with the ability to focus more time and energy on governance instead of electioneering.

(Umm, guess what? I do not any of these assholes focusing on governance. When they do, there is only one sure thing. I will lose more liberty and more property. Gridlock is good. - AF)

This adjustment would also give Congress the breathing space to consider longer-term challenges facing the nation — such as entitlement spending, immigration and climate change — that are either too complex or politically toxic to tackle within a two-year election cycle.

To offset the impact of longer congressional terms, this reform might be coupled with term limits that would cap an individual’s total congressional service at, say, 24 years, about the average for a member of Congress today. This would provide members enough time to build experience in the job, but also limit the effects of incumbency and ensure the circulation of new blood in the system.

The framers included an amendment process in the Constitution so our nation could adjust the system to meet the demands of a changing world. Surely they would not be pleased with the dysfunction, partisan acrimony and public dissatisfaction that plague modern politics. Eliminating the midterm elections would be one small step to fixing our broken system.

Oh hell, just get it over with already and anoint a "High Chancellor Supreme Pooh-Bah Ruler and Glorious Leader".

The liberals don't want the Repubs. to win.

WHL wrote:The liberals don't want the Repubs. to win.

I wonder why the Times was not calling for this in 2006???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2006

Which is the ONLY reason they are talking about suspending these mid term elections now. You KNOW they wouldn't say a word if the Dems. were expected to win.

WHL wrote:Which is the ONLY reason they are talking about suspending these mid term elections now.  You KNOW they wouldn't say a word if the Dems. were expected to win.  

Did you read the article, WHL? The author is not talking about suspending these mid-term elections, but rather he's saying that the members of the House should serve 4 year terms and the members of the Senate should serve either 4 or 8 year terms, with all elections coinciding with the presidential election. The idea has some merit because the 2 year terms are forcing the House members to raise cash and campaign every other year, which takes them away from their work. This House, controlled by Republicans, doesn't do anything anyway!!

News Buzzard wrote:

WHL wrote:Which is the ONLY reason they are talking about suspending these mid term elections now.  You KNOW they wouldn't say a word if the Dems. were expected to win.  

Did you read the article, WHL? The author is not talking about suspending these mid-term elections, but rather he's saying that the members of the House should serve 4 year terms and the members of the Senate should serve either 4 or 8 year terms, with all elections coinciding with the presidential election. The idea has some merit because the 2 year terms are forcing the House members to raise cash and campaign every other year, which takes them away from their work. This House, controlled by Republicans, doesn't do anything anyway!!

6 year term for President and out
8 Year for Senator and out
4 years for a rep (2 term max)

Anti Federalist wrote:Cancel the Midterms

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.

But the two-year cycle isn’t just unnecessary; it’s harmful to American politics.

(You know, maybe it is the wisdom of the people not to concentrate power in one person. Ya think? - AF)

(Oh, gee, I should have guessed... Mid-term elections are racist.    - AF)

(Umm, guess what? I do not any of these assholes focusing on governance. When they do, there is only one sure thing. I will lose more liberty and more property. Gridlock is good. - AF)

NB sees "the balance of power" as a bad thing.

So would've Stalin.




.

The voters should decide term limits, and shame on them if they don't show up to vote.

I did read it and I think this would not even be discussed if the Dems were winning. That is my point.

News Buzzard wrote: This House, controlled by Republicans, doesn't do anything anyway!!

I’ll fix that for you…


This Senate, controlled by Democrats, doesn't do anything anyway!!

There you go. It helps to be accurate as oppose to…well just lying.

The Republican controlled House passed 356 bills. 98% with bipartisan support and 50% passed with unanimous support. That is 356 bills that went to Harry Reid’s desk and died.

Personally, the less Congress does the better. Each and every law passed makes a criminal out of someone that wasn’t the day before the bill is signed into law. I guess Harry’s doing more for the country than any other elected official. Harry’s blocking 356 new laws that nobody read, nobody will enforce (unless it’s against the “common people”).

My guess is that Harry is serving his country by accident.

Let me make one thing clear:

I do not want any of them doing anything.

When they do something, it is usually wrong and results in more of my freedom and property being taken away.

Another quirk is that, during presidential elections, the electorate has been blacker, poorer, younger and more stupid than during midterm elections. Biennial elections require our representatives to take this into account, appealing to one set of voters for two years, then a very different electorate two years later.

Outerlimits wrote:
This Senate, controlled by Democrats, doesn't do anything anyway!!

You have to be kidding me, right. The Senate has been shut down by Republican filibusters. If you win tomorrow you might just have to legislate for a change, rather than obstruct!!

Anti Federalist wrote:Another quirk is that, during presidential elections, the electorate has been blacker, poorer, younger and more stupid than during midterm elections. Biennial elections require our representatives to take this into account, appealing to one set of voters for two years, then a very different electorate two years later.

That is one of the most racist posts I have ever read. You should really think that one over again!!

"The less Congress does, the better.


I don't want ANY of them doing ANYTHING!"

I agree with you Outer and Anti. I always said when they are not in Washington, we are better off!! Right now though, Obama is passing his little executive orders left and right. That needs to stop.

WHL wrote:"The less Congress does, the better. I don't want ANY of them doing ANYTHING!"

That means starving the Pentagon budget. If that's what you want, then so be it!!

Fine with me. They all overspend.

WHL wrote:Fine with me.  They all overspend.

Great! That would mean a savings of $350 billion annually, or $3.5 trillion over 10 years if we went back to the pre-Bush Pentagon budgets!! I like that kind of savings!!!

News Buzzard wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:Another quirk is that, during presidential elections, the electorate has been blacker, poorer, younger and more stupid than during midterm elections. Biennial elections require our representatives to take this into account, appealing to one set of voters for two years, then a very different electorate two years later.

That is one of the most racist posts I have ever read. You should really think that one over again!!

Why is what I wrote racist, but this is not?

Another quirk is that, during midterm elections, the electorate has been whiter, wealthier, older and more educated than during presidential elections. Biennial elections require our representatives to take this into account, appealing to one set of voters for two years, then a very different electorate two years later.

All I did is change the descriptions.

If that is an accurate description of the midterm electorate, then, obviously, what I wrote must be true during a presidential election.

ETA - I'll cede the point that I could have wrote "less educated" instead of "more stupid", in order to be more accurate.

News Buzzard wrote:

WHL wrote:"The less Congress does, the better. I don't want ANY of them doing ANYTHING!"

That means starving the Pentagon budget. If that's what you want, then so be it!!

I'm all for it, have been for years.

The new Surveillance State that is modern AmeriKa is being run by the Pentagon.

No more Warfare State.

No more Welfare State.

We're got damned broke and cannot afford guns or butter.

Anti Federalist wrote:Let me make one thing clear:

I do not want any of them doing anything.

When they do something, it is usually wrong and results in more of my freedom and property being taken away.

There was certainly no call for canceling the mid-term elections back in 2006.




.

News Hawk wrote:

Anti Federalist wrote:Let me make one thing clear:

I do not want any of them doing anything.

When they do something, it is usually wrong and results in more of my freedom and property being taken away.

There was certainly no call for canceling the mid-term elections back in 2006.

You mean the election when Democrats regained control of the House and Senate and spent the last two years of the Bush presidency obstructing the White House?

News Buzzard wrote:That is one of the most racist posts I have ever read. You should really think that one over again!!

You know what's racist?

Sitting around and arguing about idiosyncrasies of the idiot ACA and other minutiae of the meaningless "left/right" system that we are living in, while ignoring that millions of people, many of them minorities, are wasting away in the world's largest prison system, and that many of them are there because they were railroaded by corrupt cops, prosecutors and judges and are, in fact, innocent.

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for;  but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."
—James Madison
Federalist No. 58, 1788