Explain to a non-American why it makes sense to change Congress every two years!

What do you mean by "LEAD legislation?" And how would the House EVER be able to pass legislation without the Senate?

This would always be the case no matter what though, right?

"Professional federal government." I've never heard that term before. Do you just mean it's almost like any other profession given that it's largely ran by unelected people?

You're referring to the Secretaries? They're managing within government policy, so I'm not sure what the problem with this is other than the possibility of high turnover.

 

Why "supposed?" Isn't it guaranteed that a third of seats will be up every two years?

 

Sure, but I don't see why waiting another two years is a big deal, especially if it means that it can coincide with the Presidential election.

I suppose a compromise would be, drop it from 6 to 4 years, but increase the elections to every 4 years to coincide with the Presidential election. This would then mean that all seats would be up for election every four years. I really don't understand the imbalance between 6 year terms and elections every two years.

 

Correct.

The PM can't face confidence votes, the government as a whole can. At which point, an election is most likely triggered.

What do you mean "cannot agree on PM?"

Our PM can be kicked out of office if there is enough support in their party for it. It's happened about one thousand times since 2010.

Yeah, but I would hardly call two additional years bringing it to four years a "career.

 

I don't see why an additional two years would make any difference to people being able to "help their country and then after 2 or 3 re-elections, maybe, return to their vocation."

How do you know that "they knew that would not be good?"

Yeah, it wouldn't be accurate to say that the PM is basically the head of Parliament. He's the head of the government, that's for sure.

Actually, our Speaker of the House is the equivalent to your Speaker of the House! In that way, the US and Australia are similar. We also have a President of the Senate.

No, the Prime Minister is elected for a period until their party gets tired of them, or more commonly when the voters get tired of them.

The whim of their party. A change in PM can also be the consequence of an election triggered by parliament.

I wouldn't say that we have NO check and balance, just not as much as the US. The biggest check and balance are the voters, but they only get the chance to execute it once every four years. We also have our judiciary, which can rule legislation illegal.

 

Sarcasm?

 

Would increasing the House to four year terms really make a difference?

 

Not sure.

 

Supreme Court is where I want to see more frequent changes

 

Such is not always a bad thing, however.

 

Because people resign in off years. People die in off years etc.

 

.

 

What I mean by all but

is that the House better have a cosponsor in the Senate to begin with or any idea of its own is likely DOA in the Senate. And yes, regardless of the term length the system is interlocked such that nothing gets done unless all three cooperate, except when the full Congress is in 2/3 agreement against the President. This has happened occasionally with veto overrides, but as of yet has never happened in an impeachment and conviction.

Anyway, I agree that the two year term of office in the House is ridiculous. FFS, it's a political position by definition. A freshman Representative has just about enough time say hello before he/she is up for reelection. In the private sector I reckon you have to do your job for at least three years before you even get the opportunity to start to flex some political ladder climbing skills. But of course that is wrong, as it is the ones with political instincts, savvy and charisma that climb up quickest in the private sector, excluding entrepreneurs, of course, who create their own track.

There exists however, amazingly enough, quite a few stretches of random continuity in the House under the leadership of various Speakers. Sam Rayburn ran the House for 20y minus two 2y interruptions by Joe Martin. Checkout Henry Clay - talk about a dude that never learned to sit still. That guy would surely be on Ritalin or Adderall these days. Talk about making your own job security, he beat the drums to start the war of 1812 and then went on to lead the peace negotiations and carry on for a bit as an Ambassador to Great Britain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Speakers_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

No job or profession within the federal government and/or especially with the military, is like any civilian job or profession, but it does require a great deal of time and effort to attain a decent level of competency: just like any other civilian profession.

I believe you snipped the wrong piece of my post as a reference to the politically transient Secretaries.

In this statement

I am pointing out that the vast majority of federal and military personnel accomplish their work under managers that are generally independent of transient political philosophies and an advantage of this is reduced turnover.

 

which was part of the idea!

 

Nice to know about Australia stuff.
A couple of replies: The framers were certain that the longer someone stayed in office the less beholden to the people and the more beholden to himself they would become.

Elections are no substitute for daily formalized check and balances in the functioning if the government. A government with no checks can cause a lot of damage between elections.

Not all parliamentary systems have a separate judiciary; plus the judiciary is not a real effective single branch checker and balancer though it can do some.

 

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

Are you two the same person?

 

Recognition of a simple fact by multiple individuals does not amount to them being the same individual in disguise. Does liking the same film as your neighbor make you and said neighbor the same individual as a result?

 

I wouldn't mind every 4 years, as it does take a while for the Congressweasels to get things done. However, the missing factor is term limits. Two, 4 years terms, no more.

 

The problem with such a proposal, however, is that congressional individuals would be aware that they are limited to how much time they have in office, and if they win a second term, would go all out in attempting to implement whatever pet projects they wish, knowing that the people and their successors would not be able to do anything about it for a significant length of time.

 

What, two brilliant political commentators on the same thread. How lucky for you...

 

And that's any different from how they do things now, how?

Election time comes, and the weasels are schmoozing so hard that constituents have stubble burn on their ankles. At least by limiting their term length, we get fresh weasels every few years in the hopes that at least one of them recalls why they were voted in in the first place.

 

When one knows they have the potential of holding political office for decades, they have reason to be in for the long game, attempting to maximize their time for their own benefit. They have no underlying reason to essentially kamikaze themselves in their second term. By playing the long game they can generate for greater negative publicity for not only themselves, but also their political party, and everything they support. Overtime they stand the chance of becoming so toxic the public turns against them.

It is the sprint versus marathon approach to getting things done.

 

So long term corruption is better than short term corruption? I'll have to put that up for consideration.

You do have a point, the longer they are in DC, the more likely they have at least a cranium tucked away in a drawer somewhere, if not a whole skeleton.

I think I need to go rinse my mouth with Listerine, I have a bad taste....

 

I LOVE how you think I was being serious!