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

Then what's the point of official candidacy?

 

The parties get to control who gets to win.

 

Oh I see. But such a person cannot BE a candidate.

 

@cirdellin, I've just discovered that you already responded to this.

 

As in voting for a Presidential candidate or a Congressional candidate?

 

Well that's simply not true is it. Trump wasn't campaigning in 2017.

 

If they meet US constitutional requirements they can not only run seriously as a candidate but also win and hold the office regardless of the major parties’ wishes. There are a few examples.

 

As in voting for a Presidential candidate or a Congressional candidate?

 

Vote for whomever you want but if you vote for Justin Bieber for president of the US and he wins the majority of votes (shudders) then he will not be allowed to assume office as he is too young and not born in the US.

 

I'm asking if you're talking about a presidential election, or if you're including ALL elections.

 

Every executive and legislative office in the US on the federal level have preconditions for the seeking candidate.

 

The age requirement is different for President isn't it?

 

Yes 35 for president and I think 25 for the house and senate but I admit I could be wrong about that.

 

So are you also against Presidential term limits?

 

Well, golly, I wasn't too thrilled with FDR's third and partial fourth term, now that you mention it. Not too much anyone could do about it after Hirohito's hospitality call on Pearl Harbor. After that the desire cooled for three or more terms even with ongoing relatively minor wars going on. In the event of a major war there wouldn't be any argument about Himself staying on, whoever he might be.

Yes, he. Hillary Clinton gave us a real peek into Democrat Party governance. Kamala Harris? Even more so.

 

Take your pick.

https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q=qualifications for u.s. office

 

You are referring to the House of Representatives, which along with the US Senate, makes up the US Congress.

People with careers and businesses to run are willing to step into the job of a member of the US House for two years, so they can still gave a career and business to go back to afterwards. If we made the term four years a lot of people would not bother to interrupt their lives for that long.

 

Then how do you explain people remaining in Congress for one thousand years, like Bernie Sanders?

 

Excellent retirement benefits. Almost as good as their active-status salaries. And the graft. Oodles of it, just look down on the sidewalk and you find piles of money just waiting to slide into a congresscrook's pocket.
You cannot come out of Washington with more money than you earned without a real honesty issue.

Sanders has what---five mansions? That socialism thing must have worked out for that gnarly old Red.

 

That's their choice. I don't see how you could read my post and not understand this.

Like I said, a lot of people would not seek to serve in the House of Reps if it was a four year term. Bernie never really had a steady paying job until he went into elected positions in sate and the US Senate. The same goes for a lot of those lifers in Congress. They got elected to a seat in the US House or Senate, and they never left.

 

It’s difficult to explain. To understand the concept, you really have to live in the USA and experience 46 years of career politicians like Joe Biden

 

Some rural districts periodically get reshaped after a U.S. census but never seem to change much on the Congress-slug that allegedly represents it. In my own county, the district number changes but the same putz heads the ticket. He's so bad they won't even give him anything close to an important assignment. But as long as he votes party, they let him vegetate. Lord save us from political barnacles.

 

My point is that there seems to be PLENTY of people who remain in Congress for one thousand years. So it seems that 4 year term lengths wouldn't bother alot of people. Enough people stay in Congress for long enough, that the majority opinion in this thread has been that it's better to have 2 years terms because 4 years would mean that people hang around for too long. You seem to be saying the opposite - that nobody would be interested in even doing it for 4 years, let alone a thousand.

 

"Reshaped?"

 

Someone in this thread thinks that having 4 year terms would be a disincentive for people to run for office because it's too long. What do you think?