As everyone knows, the U.S. House of Representatives is worse than useless — it's toxic. And, as many have undoubtedly surmised, the principal culprit, other than Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, is its two-year term of office (without term limits). This renders a de facto job description for every House Member as: "Get reelected". I propose a Constitutional Amendment to expand the job description to: "Get reelected. If time permits, try to do the people's work". In what follows I describe my initial thoughts on the subject. If this meets with some reasonable amount of interest, I will give it some more thought.
Unlike the cases for the President and every U.S. Senator, every House Member, even the Speaker who is second in line to succeed the President, must campaign for reelection at every bi-annual Congressional election. This is rather silly. The Constitution should allocate some time to the lower chamber of our bi-cameral Legislative Branch for the people's work, the most important aspect of which (all bills for raising revenue) must originate in the House. My proposed Amendment would modify the Members' terms so as to accommodate a little time spent on matters only partly related to getting reelected. To wit:
It is not often acknowledged by scientists and engineers, albeit very familiar to their spouses and significant others, that what a technically oriented personality fears above all is being wrong. I myself can attest to the attending horror, for I was wrong once: back in 1976 I thought I had made a mistake ... but I was wrong. :) In any case, this overwhelming fear causes us to frequently offer much more information than any normal person requires.
In outlining my proposed Constitutional Amendment (above the fold), I felt compelled to specify in detail how the new election process would play out, and in so doing made a simple modification to the existing process sound much too complicated. I assure you it is not complicated at all, though lightweights like Nancy Pelosi and heavyweight cynics like Barney Rubble might think otherwise.
My proposal is motivated by the observation that the House (unlike the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court) must endure every bi-annual Congressional election! This is an unfair burden imposed on only one Branch of the Federal Government (actually a sub-Branch of the Legislative Branch). Hence, my proposal seeks to introduce a small reduction in this perceived unfair burden, thereby enabling the House of Representatives to spend a fraction of its session on the people's work (for which the Members were ostensibly elected) instead of the continuous and exclusive jockeying and posturing for political advantage.
The gist of my proposal is to extend a House Member's term in office to 3 years on average. This would minimize the increase (in units of years) while simultaneously leaving undisturbed the Congressional Election calendar (i.e., occurring in even numbered years on the first Tuesday after November 1). Moreover, the increase would still keep a Member's term shorter than any other Federal term, viz.
Unlike the cases for the President and every U.S. Senator, every House Member, even the Speaker who is second in line to succeed the President, must campaign for reelection at every bi-annual Congressional election. This is rather silly. The Constitution should allocate some time to the lower chamber of our bi-cameral Legislative Branch for the people's work, the most important aspect of which (all bills for raising revenue) must originate in the House. My proposed Amendment would modify the Members' terms so as to accommodate a little time spent on matters only partly related to getting reelected. To wit:
- Every State's Congressional (House) delegation will have two (alternating) classifications of Congressional Districts: Single (2 year) and Double (4 year) terms.
- At every bi-annual Congressional election, either half of all the House seats or all of them will be contested (the latter "complete House-clearing" occurring every third election).
- Every contested seat will be contested for a term opposite to the one just ended (Single or Double).
- For the initial election subsequent to Ratification of the Amendment, each State will determine how to seed their two classifications of Member seats in preparation for the first complete House-clearing. For those States having an odd number of Congressional Districts, one classification will be determined by a toss of a penny (recall "Honest Abe") by the State Governor.
Update #1
Posted by TheBigHenry on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2008 12:25:00 PM ESTIt is not often acknowledged by scientists and engineers, albeit very familiar to their spouses and significant others, that what a technically oriented personality fears above all is being wrong. I myself can attest to the attending horror, for I was wrong once: back in 1976 I thought I had made a mistake ... but I was wrong. :) In any case, this overwhelming fear causes us to frequently offer much more information than any normal person requires.
In outlining my proposed Constitutional Amendment (above the fold), I felt compelled to specify in detail how the new election process would play out, and in so doing made a simple modification to the existing process sound much too complicated. I assure you it is not complicated at all, though lightweights like Nancy Pelosi and heavyweight cynics like Barney Rubble might think otherwise.
My proposal is motivated by the observation that the House (unlike the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court) must endure every bi-annual Congressional election! This is an unfair burden imposed on only one Branch of the Federal Government (actually a sub-Branch of the Legislative Branch). Hence, my proposal seeks to introduce a small reduction in this perceived unfair burden, thereby enabling the House of Representatives to spend a fraction of its session on the people's work (for which the Members were ostensibly elected) instead of the continuous and exclusive jockeying and posturing for political advantage.
The gist of my proposal is to extend a House Member's term in office to 3 years on average. This would minimize the increase (in units of years) while simultaneously leaving undisturbed the Congressional Election calendar (i.e., occurring in even numbered years on the first Tuesday after November 1). Moreover, the increase would still keep a Member's term shorter than any other Federal term, viz.
- Supreme Court Justice (essentially for life);
- U.S. Senator (6 years; without term limits);
- President (4 years; with a 2-term limit);
- U.S. Congressman (3 years on average; without term limits).
This is far too complicated for the American electorate, let alone Noncey Pelosi and her sidekick Barney Rubble.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, of course, about the electorate and Pelosi et al. But that shouldn't matter because the election procedure remains unchanged: at every bi-annual election, those House seats whose term is expiring will have candidates on the ballot. The details of which House terms are expiring, which are really straight-forward, are no more complicated than the 1/3 (of the Senate) rotation that has been in place from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your feedback.
You may think this a joke, but I'm quite serious.
ReplyDeleteI think House Members should be chosen at random from the adult population for 2-year terms. They would be given nice dormitory family quarters in DC. If they are employed by a company, they would have a guarantee that their job would be remain available at the end of the legislative stint.
Senatorial elections, on the other hand, should be returned to the state legislatures as originally envisioned by the Framers.
I don't doubt your seriousness, Apostate. Thanks for your interest and feedback.
ReplyDeleteIn view of the feedback I've received (so far), I will add an update to this post, shortly after breakfast.