that senate should have a limit, perhaps 2 years per senatoragain they sit, no doubt pampered by pressure groups for years, with a knife at the throat of the world economy
(,
Mon 31 Dec 2012, 10:06,
archived)
Haha - but then you'd have to get the Senate to agree to that ... and the House.They like the gravy train .... and they are staying on !
(,
Mon 31 Dec 2012, 10:13,
archived)
thisthe president is only allowed a maximum of two terms.
but then, perhaps we should apply similar things to politicos this side if the pond.
(but then, perhaps we should apply similar things to politicos this side if the pond.
Thor_sonofodin has done things, terrible things on,
Mon 31 Dec 2012, 10:57,
archived)
Funny, I was just reading about this.The theory was that congress got 2-year terms, and they'd be the highly-responsive high-turnover innovators, because they were so reliant on being re-elected.
The senate got 6-year terms so that, free from the worry of short-term vote-grubbing, they would give the somber serious long-term review of what those puppies in the House came up with.
It's the House of Commons/House of Lords theory, but without peerages.
However, because of congressional gerrymandering, it's easier for a congressperson to be re-elected more than 3 times than it is for a senator to be re-elected once.
From The Assault On Reason, Al Gore.
[Systemic corruption makes it all a moot point, anyway.]
(,
Mon 31 Dec 2012, 12:24,
archived)
The senate got 6-year terms so that, free from the worry of short-term vote-grubbing, they would give the somber serious long-term review of what those puppies in the House came up with.
It's the House of Commons/House of Lords theory, but without peerages.
However, because of congressional gerrymandering, it's easier for a congressperson to be re-elected more than 3 times than it is for a senator to be re-elected once.
From The Assault On Reason, Al Gore.
[Systemic corruption makes it all a moot point, anyway.]
