Current Events > Would you rather term limits or an age limit for Congress?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Would increasing the House size eliminate gerrymandering, theoretically?

Age. Everyone diminishes with age. We need multi-term people to pass along institutional knowledge.

TerraSeeker posted...

People in their 60s are still mentally capable. It's pretty rare to see them mentally declined.

74 should be right for senate 78 for reps.
Nothing over 80.

6 terms for reps, 2 for senate

If you serve in one you can't serve in the other

President is the exception

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Do you know how Gerrymandering works?

Doom_Art posted...

It's a fucking democracy dude lol

Then let's elect 10 year olds to 30 year terms. We're undemocratic for not allowing such

Forty_Niners posted...

Do you know how Gerrymandering works?

Then let's mandate districts have to adhere to existing county lines.

It doesn't eliminate gerrymandering but it prevents some of the sheer insanity we see today

Age limit, set around 50 at most.

wackyteen posted...

Then let's mandate districts have to adhere to existing county lines.

Counties have wildly different populations.

hockeybub89 posted...

Then let's elect 10 year olds to 30 year terms. We're undemocratic for not allowing such

You're usually smart

wackyteen posted...

Then let's mandate districts have to adhere to existing county lines.

It doesn't eliminate gerrymandering but it prevents some of the sheer insanity we see today

I looked it up after posting, and studies seem to show that there's only so much a minority party can gerrymandering the majority with the more seats there are.

Third, increasing the size of the House may, in fact, help to fix the issue of partisan gerrymandering. The more districts there are, the harder it becomes to gerrymander effectively. Increasing the size of the House means more accountability, better representation, and increased diversity in Congress.

The more seats you need to gerrymander, the harder it becomes. Splitting a pie in 10 pieces is easier than splitting in 100 pieces.

Antifar posted...

Counties have wildly different populations.

Yeah, hence why they draw lines with precision through existing counties to capture minority populations of the county into districts.

If they have to play an entire county into a mix of other counties, it can hinder their attempts to draw 'safe' districts.

wackyteen posted...

Yeah, hence why they draw lines with precision through existing counties to capture minority populations of the county into districts.

If they have to play an entire county into a mix of other counties, it can hinder their attempts to draw 'safe' districts.

LA County has 9.9 million people.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Cool. Explain why more districts wouldn't decrease gerrymandering?

wackyteen posted...

Yeah, hence why they draw lines with precision through existing counties to capture minority populations of the county into districts.

If they have to play an entire county into a mix of other counties, it can hinder their attempts to draw 'safe' districts.

To give you an example of the math quickly becoming unworkable:
NY has 26 congressional districts. About 12% of the population lives in Brooklyn.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

So you're not willing to answer any question. Why post on a message board if you're willing to comment but never actually engage in a conversation? Is trolling all you plan on doing?

Forty_Niners posted...

LA County has 9.9 million people.

Then you can make exceptions for large counties and give them multiple representatives or grant exceptions to allow large counties to have solo representatives (though that comes other issues when you have one person representing 2% of the population of the country).

Though my intent isn't to give each county a representative. Just get rid of the BS they try to pull like in Louisiana where a district is drawn from NOLA to fucking Baton Rouge so they can effectively repress minorities in the 2 largest cities by giving them one representatives while empty swamp land gets multiple representatives. (Bit hyperbolic)

Blo posted...

*world's biggest jerk off motion*

They're literally correct?

Antifar posted...

You're usually smart

I wasn't the one who implied limits are undemocratic. But if they are, then there is an example where we are fine putting limits on democracy. If we can have an age minimum, we can have an age maximum. We can limit people from being career politicians. Directly electing leaders from within a new framework is still democracy.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It is frustrating to live in a district run by a person who does not represent you and knowing that said person can run effectively unopposed until they die of natural causes.

At least, in theory, with term limits, you could expect the opposition to have to run someone new and if that new person is weak, then your party might stand a chance of representing at some point in your life time.

Its a solution with its own set of problems though.

Term limits do not discriminate between good legislators and bad ones.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

That's why I said it's a solution with its own set of problems.

I don't think there is a perfect solution to this issue.

Personally I would prefer an age limit over term limits.

Or pretty generous term limits of like 24 years so we can still have experienced legislators while avoiding dinosaurs of the Senate and House from representing your grandfather since they were your age.

hockeybub89 posted...

I wasn't the one who implied limits are undemocratic. But if they are, then there is an example where we are fine putting limits on democracy. If we can have an age minimum, we can have an age maximum. We can limit people from being career politicians. Directly electing leaders from within a new framework is still democracy.

It's better to have those that have knowledge and experience to teach the younger crowd. Just because one is old doesn't mean they're no longer useful. A lot of old people are still sharp-minded and could run circles around you or me.

Neither. A term or age limit woild have kept Nancy Pelosi from being there and her presence alone invalidates either for me. She has been the best thing to happen to Congress easy.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I'll be real. Because they disagree with me and incumbency can make it really hard to get rid of them. Are we in favor of abolishing President term limits? If the Supreme Court was elected, should people still theoretically be on it for life? Why is the fear of tyrants only at the highest offices?

And maybe we should do something to help people understand the government since the people should be the ones running it in the first place. The government should be a tool of the people, not a power that is above them.

We could still have some sort of educational/experiential standards and people could still be allowed to run for different positions in different aspects of government. Trump wasn't bad because he had no poltical experience. He was bad because he's a stupid child who has failed at everything.

hockeybub89 posted...

Are we in favor of abolishing President term limits?

Is there any argument that this wouldn't have been preferable in 2016, say?

But for the most part, it's been very rare since FDR that a president is both popular and still up for the job after 8 years in office.

TyVulpine posted...

It's better to have those that have knowledge and experience to teach the younger crowd. Just because one is old doesn't mean they're no longer useful. A lot of old people are still sharp-minded and could run circles around you or me.

Which is why the elderly are supposed to advise, not govern.

Term limits solves both problems since there aren't too many 80 year olds that decide to jump into politics. The old ones usually started in their 30s and just never got out.

wackyteen posted...

Then let's mandate districts have to adhere to existing county lines.

Have you seen how red the county map is? Every GOP would take you up on that offer.

Forty_Niners posted...

Would increasing the House size eliminate gerrymandering, theoretically?

You need to construct how voting is done to make gerrymandering harder.