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

So the idea is that it's a good thing that three are three separate branches in the US, because otherwise there would be a risk that the legislature could do whatever it wants?

 

How so?

 

Perhaps I can ask in this way: Even if 100% of the seats in the House are held by one party and 100% of the seats in the Senate are held by the other party, neither the house nor the senate can pass anything without the other?

Well secretaries are unelected too, so do you have a problem with them?

What is an example of one of these managers?

 

You can't remember?

 

Actually we change about 10% if the congress every 2 years. Please note most of our house members have been there their entire lives. They haven't worked any where else since they hit thirty. Giving there affinity four screwing thing up and lining their own pockets by means that would get the rest of us thrown in jail, I wish it all did get changed every two years.

 

I have mixed feelings.

 

Well surely the compromise would be to introduce term limits. Then it surely wouldn't be a problem if an election was held every 4 years to coincide with the Presidential election. And it would surely make sense for the term limit to be 4 years after one election cycle, or even 8 years after two election cycles.

 

About what?

 

Such is not being stated. A question was presented, that being what is the difference between candidates limited to two four-year terms, and candidates who seek to hold office for a lifetime so that they do not have to seek employment through conventional means like the people they are supposed to represent. An answer to the question was provided as to what the difference is.

 

Such is correct.

 

Your making the assumption the incumbent loses. We have no term limits on legislators, and many stay in office for decades.

Our system just gives the people the opportunity remove them if desired.

 

My point is that it CHANGES every two years.

 

But not always for the better.

 

That's my point. Actually, I can't see how it would EVER be for the better. When the American people vote in a President, they should be able to get something from it. And I'm not sure how that's entirely realistic when things can be RADICALLY changed half way into a President's first term.

 

The incumbent always has the advantage. Take away that advantage. Don't allow him to campaign. Make him run on his record and a debate with his challenger.

 

The incumbent President?

 

Only if the press stays out of it.

 

And given the various powers of incumbency, you have to try really hard to lose.

 

Precisely. Separation of Powers -- and there are three powers of government -- was the brainchild of Montesquieu and believed by the founders and framers to be the linchpin of a constitutional republic. If the legislature can do whatever it wants that will directly lead to tyranny. If the Executive can do whatever it wants that will directly lead to tyranny. If the Judicial can do whatever it wants that will eventually lead to tyranny though the judicial is naturally more constrained because it does not originate anything. As an aside, the past few decades have seen a bit of tyranny emanate from the courts as there are more and more rulings decided by the justices' beliefs and not the strict law. The judicial branch was not viewed by the framers as anywhere near as powerful as the other branches which is why there are no effective constitutional checks on the judicial. If the Supreme Court makes a ruling based on their skewed view of the Constitution, that's it; nobody can do a thing about it.

 

The focus and goal was a government that protected individual rights and liberty. Efficiency in government was not a focus and often viewed as, while maybe not a bad thing, certainly not necessarily a good thing. The easier it is for a legislature to pass laws, the more laws they will pass. The more laws a government passes the more powerful it becomes and almost always at the expense of individual liberty. The framers would be very disheartened to know the amount of legislation done by the federal government. That is the opposite of the idea of a republic.

 

It was set up that way 200+ years ago because the Founders did not want Washington to be filled with permanent, career politicians (a ruling group of elites). They wanted regular citizens to serve a term or two, then go back home to their family and career.

They also wanted accountability. Congress has to answer to the people every two years.

 

Except that people remain there for one thousand years - like Biden and Sanders. Sanders even to this day obviously.

 

Already answered the first one, not sure why you seemingly still have a question about my opinion on it.

Yes I do, but my intent was to compare and contrast all of these features of US government with the length of the term of office of our House officials.

Lastly, are you actually asking me for an example of career professional federal and or military manager / supervisor / boss? An example? Let's suppose that I cannot provide you with one. Will it then become your opinion that they do not therefore exist?

 

Yeah, that didn't work out as the framers thought; their bad.

 

I'm inclined to agree, and what it does is cause congresspersons to spend 50% of their time, that's the people's time, by the way, on fundraising which is unavoidable because of the huge sums now being spend on political campaigns. I say make it 4 years or take money out of campaigns and federal fund it and everyone gets the same amount.