Polarization Of Political Parties

Living in the present and looking back at the past, we as citizens see what has worked and what can be improved; Congress is a good example of this. Some may say that Congress is a failure and some may be happy and proud of the way it functions and runs our country. For those who do not approve of it, the idea is to start fresh and get new ideas, people and habits into office. With the way Congress works today, that may not be the easiest tasks. In order to make changes in Congress, time is needed; a significant change cannot be made over night and expect it to run smoothly. One of the ways to bring change and settle the debate of whether or not to ‘restart Congress’ is to set term limits on congressional members. There should be term

Congressional terms have no limits. Controversy exists between those who think the terms should be limited and those who believe that terms should remain unlimited. The group that wants to limit the terms argues that the change will promote fresh ideas and reduce the possibility of decisions being made for self-interest. Those who oppose term limits believe that we would sacrifice both the stability and experience held by veteran politicians. They also point out that our election process allows the voter to limit terms, at their discretion. While experience and stability are important considerations, congressional terms should be limited to a maximum of two.

Term limits have, however, been linked to more efficient legislatures across the country. With term limits, toeing the party line is less important because members of the legislature would not be seeking re-election. There would be less partisan politics and more cooperation in passing legislation that makes a positive impact on the lives of Americans.

Having term limits would be good because there would be a definite change every so many years. If the people did not like what was going on then they would know that as soon as the term was over they could be replaced.

Polarization in Congress is growing uncontrollably. Congress will not agree on anything because officials are so far on the political spectrum. The spectrum is a number line that shows how liberal or conservative someone is (negative is

Currently, we have the opportunity for two four-year terms with a possibility of reelection at the end of the first term. This has created a problem because at the third year of the first term, the president will usually start campaigning for a second term. This takes away one whole year that the president could be focusing on the interest of the nation rather than his own election interests. Having a six-year term with an opportunity to be given a two-year extension would cease the worrying about campaigning for reelection. Without the possibility of reelection, the president would have no incentive to prolong controversial decisions or the President doing certain things to ensure his or her reelection. The President would have an option to ask for a two-year extension which could be denied or approved by the voters. If the President was denied the two-year extension, they would end their presidency at the end of the sixth year. If the voters approved, the term would end at eight years. Since the President would have no opponent in the fifth-year, he or she would likely focus on the nation’s interests, making good decisions to earn him or herself another two-years. Replacing the two four-year terms has many benefits not only for the president but for the nation. COME UP WITH TRANSITIONAL

Over the past three decades, the distance between parties has continued to grow steadily. As their distances increase it has become harder for presidents to receive votes from both parties.

I agree that term limits may help with the corruption problem, however I also believe that term limits may create a Congress of little experience. In reality, there is almost no possibility that congressional term limits will be enacted. Even if Donald Trump proposed these term limits, such a change would require a two-thirds vote from both chambers or a constitutional convention. And neither the House nor the Senate would agree to placing term limits on

I really hate when others take my right to decide when my elected representatives can no longer represent me. Term limits take that choice away from voters. We already have term limits, it's called a ballot. The majority of voters either really like the person representing them or are too lazy to exercise that very powerful means of limiting how long someone represents them. With all the support many voters give to term limits, it is simply a sign that voters don't want to be bothered with voting responsibly. This type of voter would rather a law be passed to take over that responsibility.

All 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives were up for reelection in 2010. In the 2010 U.S. House election, the average amount spent by Super PACs in 87 districts was $242,580; see Table 1 and Figure 1 for average spending by outside entities and challengers. The maximum about Super PACs spent was $912,503 in Colorado’s Fourth Congressional District, where Cory Gardner (R) defeated incumbent Betsy Markey (D). The average independent expenditures by political parties in 94 districts was $1,238,897. The maximum outside party spending was $4,289,706 in Michigan’s Seventh Congressional District, where Tim Walberg (R) beat incumbent Mark Schauer (D). The average challenger spending was $704,692 in 366 districts. Figures 2, shows the

Party Polarization is a defining feature of contemporary at both the elite and activist levels. Party polarization is defined as “the division between the two major parties on most political issues, with members of each party unified around their party’s positions with little crossover” (371). One explanation for party polarization is how the congressional districts are being sorted and how those districts play a role in the congressional elections. The congressional districts are drawn to favor one political party, republican or democrat, over another; in other words, they are “safe districts”. This is done by drawing a district in such a way that there is a clear majority of one party or the other. Lawmakers want to do this because it eliminates the competition within the general election.

When utterly stuck in a rut, accustomed to doing the same activities day after day, nothing productive nor worthwhile gets done. In order to combat this, change needs to happen. The same applies to members of congress. After years and years of sitting in Washington, congress men and women accomplish little and get too comfy in their places. In the article “Term Limits Don't Work,” Stanley M. Caress, a professor of political science, argues that term limits—a limit to the number of terms that an official may serve—do not cure the ills of Congress. However, congressional term limits should be enacted and they prove beneficial to the United States of America.

Imposing term limits on the United States Congress could potentially lead to a massive reduction of knowledgeable politicians in the American government, thus resulting in a fatal blow to the future of American progression. When term limits are imposed, it has been shown that legislatures eventually lose valuable leaders, that have the experience of law making and representing their districts with excellence. The national legislation also would willingly increase the power held by the Executive Branch, this intern could compromise the checks and balances system.

These two phenomena are interconnected because not only is there a growing polarization between liberals and conservatives, but also within the Republican Party itself. It’s facing a historic divide over the party’s basic principles and identity. The issues raised by grass-roots voters (resistance to immigration, concern about wages, etc.) are deviating from and clashing with the Republican establishment’s interests (openness to immigration, free trade, etc.) (Healy and Martin – article from class).

the Civil Rights Act of 1964.82 The passage of that Act ended an era that had