Congressional term limits has constitutional amendment-level support.

[Direckshun]

To review, to pass a constitutional amendment, you need 2/3 support of both the House and the Senate, and 3/4 of the states.

We now have that with the American public.

The electoral college is not far behind -- 60% support.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159881/am...l-college.aspx

Americans Call for Term Limits, End to Electoral College
Virtually no partisan disagreement on these long-discussed constitutional reforms
by Lydia Saad
January 18, 2013

PRINCETON, NJ -- Even after the 2012 election in which Americans re-elected most of the sitting members of the U.S. House and Senate -- as is typical in national elections -- three-quarters of Americans say that, given the opportunity, they would vote "for" term limits for members of both houses of Congress.



Republicans and independents are slightly more likely than Democrats to favor term limits; nevertheless, the vast majority of all party groups agree on the issue. Further, Gallup finds no generational differences in support for the proposal.

These findings, from Gallup Daily tracking conducted Jan. 8-9, are similar to those from 1994 to 1996 Gallup polls, in which between two-thirds and three-quarters of Americans said they would vote for a constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms that members of Congress and the U.S. Senate can serve.

More Than Six in 10 Would Abolish Electoral College

Americans are nearly as open to major electoral reform when it comes to doing away with the Electoral College. Sixty-three percent would abolish this unique, but sometimes controversial, mechanism for electing presidents that was devised by the framers of the Constitution. While constitutional and statutory revisions have been made to the Electoral College since the nation's founding, numerous efforts to abolish it over the last 200+ years have met with little success.

There is even less partisan variation in support for this proposal than there is for term limits, with between 61% and 66% of all major party groups saying they would vote to do away with the Electoral College if they could. Similarly, between 60% and 69% of all major age groups take this position.



Gallup has asked Americans about the Electoral College in a number of ways over the years, and regardless of the precise phrasing, large majorities have always supported doing away with it. That includes 80% support in 1968 and 67% in 1980 with wording similar to what is used today.

Compared with today, support for abolishing it was slightly lower from 2000 through 2011, ranging from 59% to 62%, when using a question that asked Americans if they would rather amend the Constitution so the candidate who wins the most votes nationally wins the election, or keep the current system in which the winner is decided in the Electoral College.

Gallup trends show that Republicans were far less supportive than Democrats of abolishing the Electoral College in late 2000, when Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush had lost the popular vote, but was fighting a legal battle to win Florida and therefore the Electoral College. Since then, however, Republicans have gradually become less protective of the Electoral College, to the point that by 2011, a solid majority of Republicans were in favor of abolishing it.

Bottom Line

Large majorities of Americans are in favor of establishing term limits for members of the U.S. House and Senate, and doing away with the Electoral College. Despite sharp polarization of the parties on many issues in 21st century politics, Republicans and Democrats broadly agree on both longstanding election reform proposals.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I love how the left likes to use the wisdom of the mob to alter our Constitution. Democracy is not the best form of govt. It's a mistake to abolish the EC.
Term limits, I can't agree to for the House since they have to be re-elected every two years. The senate perhaps due to their longer term.
However, I'd prefer we go back to state legislatures picking senators. This way if a senator is not acting on behalf of his state he can be removed.

There's no guarantee that term limits will solve our problems as another guy could be just as bad.

True but with term limits you prevent Senators and Congressmen from making it a career. Also the hope is that by doing this you force these politicians live with the laws they enact instead of being immune from them because they spend decades at times in office. Outside of the SCOTUS, I think all politicians should be subject to term limits.

[Mr. Plow]

Originally Posted by tredadda

Outside of the SCOTUS, I think all politicians should be subject to term limits.

Yup.

[notorious]

We should also allow them to meet once, maybe twice a year in Washington.

They should live in their districts the rest of the year.

[FishingRod]

While I do believe more good than bad would come of forced term limits I find the idea of taking the choice out of the hands of the peoplereprehensible. Please protect us from ourselves legislation just doesn’t sit well with me. If we are going to do that perhaps we should just appoint our congressmen and Senators by pulling the names of random citizens out of a hat. Honestly I’m not convinced they wouldn’t do a better job.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by notorious

We should also allow them to meet once, maybe twice a year in Washington.

They should live in their districts the rest of the year.

I actually like this idea much more. Keep them away from messing with us. I believe they do something like this in Texas.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by tredadda

True but with term limits you prevent Senators and Congressmen from making it a career.

That's caused by voting. Voting should handle it. If it doesn't then it's the people's fault.
Another thing is get rid of pensions for them. Including the Presidential branch.

Also the hope is that by doing this you force these politicians live with the laws they enact instead of being immune from them because they spend decades at times in office. Outside of the SCOTUS, I think all politicians should be subject to term limits.

Well, this is a good point. Or they could care less about what they pass, if its something that won't affect them privately, because they won't be running again.

As for the SC, those judges can be impeached and for the same reasons as any other official or "high crimes and misdemeanors" which does not mean crimes and misdemeanors under criminal law alone. How about for trashing the Constitution? How about taking out the Progressives and Roberts for rewriting Obamacare as a tax, when that point was not argued in the court ( except for a last minute toss in by Obama's side). Not being able to argue or defend it as a tax, removed the whole Origination clause from being examined or discussed. This applies for a tax. The bill did not originate in the House but the Senate. It has to originate in the House if it's a tax.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

While I do believe more good than bad would come of forced term limits I find the idea of taking the choice out of the hands reprehensible. Please protect us from ourselves legislation just doesn’t sit well with me. If we are going to do that perhaps we should just appoint our congressmen and Senators by pulling the names of random citizens out of a hat. Honestly I’m not convinced they wouldn’t do a better job.

No one really knows what the outcome would be.

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Do you honestly think, San Francisco would not elect someone similar to Nancy Pelosi?

Of course they will, but they won't have seniority.

Seniority is what makes these corrupt scumbags so powerful.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I love how the left likes to use the wisdom of the mob to alter our Constitution. Democracy is not the best form of govt. It's a mistake to abolish the EC.
Term limits, I can't agree to for the House since they have to be re-elected every two years. The senate perhaps due to their longer term.
However, I'd prefer we go back to state legislatures picking senators. This way if a senator is not acting on behalf of his state he can be removed.

There's no guarantee that term limits will solve our problems as another guy could be just as bad.

That is an interesting idea. I was reading something about bicameral legislation last week, and the notion of bicameral government as expressed by the founding fathers, and it seemed to imply that our Senate was supposed to be a "wiser" group of politicians. That it should be a body made up of politicians who were recognized as the elite political minds of each state to be custodians of the law. That is certainly not how I view our current Senators.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by listopencil

That is an interesting idea. I was reading something about bicameral legislation last week, and the notion of bicameral government as expressed by the founding fathers, and it seemed to imply that our Senate was supposed to be a "wiser" group of politicians. That it should be a body made up of politicians who were recognized as the elite political minds of each state to be custodians of the law. That is certainly not how I view our current Senators.

As well as to be there for the state—not in a popular vote sense but for that state's interest. States were supposed to be a sovereign entity. One argument for changing it to popular vote was that it would be less corrupt. But that hasn't happened because outside money goes to them when they run.

[Mr. Kotter]

Put me down with the "Yay!" vote for term limits. It would be a definite step in the right direction, and would restore us to the much more representative citizen-based-politic (rather than a special interest based politic) that the founders envisioned.

However, small states in the Senate make one changing the electoral college an absolute non-starter. Ain't happening.

Add a campaign finance ammendment to halt corporate and plutocratic wholesale hijacking of the real people's government...and we might even move slowly back to government of the people, by the people, and for the people--rather than the corrupt elite centered travesty that we have today.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Put me down with the "Yay!" vote. It would be a definite step in the right direction.

Along with a campaign finance ammendment to halt corporate and plutocratic wholesale hijacking of the real people's government.

So we're amending the Bill of Rights now? Wow, that's really out there.

[notorious]

Making them live in their district will not only force them to listen to their people, but it will also keep them away from each other.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

As well as to be there for the state—not in a popular vote sense but for that state's interest. States were supposed to be a sovereign entity. One argument for changing it to popular vote was that it would be less corrupt. But that hasn't happened because outside money goes to them when they run.

Originally Posted by notorious

Making them live in their district will not only force them to listen to their people, but it will also keep them away from each other.

I am warming up to this idea.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

So we're amending the Bill of Rights now? Wow, that's really out there.

As someone who insists on original intent....your acceptance of the "modern" and corporatist perversion of free speech and the first amendment would have the founders rolling over in their graves, and exercising their second amendment rights to put your whackjob lunatic fringe in their rightful place.

Despite the travesty of Citizens United, the founders would not have accepted the idea that money equals "speech."