As long as the old men in the legislature are able to flip back and forth in the legislative body we will not be bringing young people with new ideas into the discussions.
Although I would have probably voted for Sen. Hoffman’s term limits bill (I voted for them every time when I had a chance), too often, the “perpetual politician problem” is the uninformed voter.
This is especially true in statewide SD elections. The low information Red State GOP voter is much like the low information urban Blue State/City DEM voter (h/t Jesse Kelly): they often spend less time deciding whom to vote for than they would spend buying a washing machine; they show up once every 2-4 years to re-elect the same familiar politicians that didn’t fix anything since the last time they voted. And, properly, both groups will suffer the same fate: they get the government they deserve.
Thanks for your comment, sir. I acknowledge the "perpetual politician" and "uninformed voter" are related problems, but at least term limits addresses the former, whether they like it or not. Solving the latter is more difficult, but I'm also accountable to them, no matter how much information they have or lack. I regret I didn't have the opportunity to work with you, all the best. Sen. Hoffman
Brent, I have always believed term limits add to the growing problem, and always have opposed them. 1) if one knows he is term limited, he could easily campaign for, and raise money for his replacement, thus creating the ideal legacy candidate to protect his policy. 2) I believe our 2 year election cycle is sufficient enough to allow the voters to remove their representatives frequently.
Perhaps, change the Senate to be 6 Year Terms, maybe with 12 Year Limit; whereas i the State House they remain at 2 year terms with No term limit. This may allow the voters to be protected by restricting the Senate, but allow them to maintain their favorite candidates in the State House as long as they they choose to. How would this change the dynamics?
As to your first point, a politician may campaign for his replacement and raise money, with or without term limits. As to your second point, in concept, a 4-year term makes some sense, especially for the state senate, but that would create conflicting language with the "term limits" provision of "four consecutive terms." In my opinion, the better strategy, likely supported by voters, is to first enact real term limits (remove the "consecutive" language), and only later to then ask voters to increase the 2-year cycle to four years.
I like and support the 2 YR Election Cycle. I would not purposely do away with it. We need to hold elections every two years, so I would not be in favor of that.
I am really against term limits, and most likely not support them, but I was simply saying, if you wanted to shake things up in South Dakota, we should amend, or change our state laws to 'add' districts' - smaller is better, more conservative.
I would like to expand the State to 1 Senator Per 12,850 State Citizens. This gives us 70 Senators, and 140 Representatives. Giving the People a Larger Voice.
That requires a simple majority of 50%+1 to pass most initiatives 36 in the Senate, and 71 in the House, this would make it tougher to get some of the unconstitutional measures passed...
The more districts, the closer to the people the representatives become. The closer they get to the people, the more the people know them.
I would also favor placing the Senators to be chosen by means of "Party Caucauses" allowing them to be chosen in the same manner as the At-Large Statewide Officials, allowing for the Voters to elect them in the general election. THis would curb some of the campaign finance means of raising money.
I also want to see the U.S Senators appointed by the legislature, with more representatives, you would get a more conservative, natural chosen choice for the U.S Senate, the person the legislature chooses, then goes to a State General Ballot, allowing the voters to choose between two or more candidates.
I would also like to see the Electoral COllege go back to the "District Vote" rather than the Statewide Popular Vote. I would like to see the legislature adopt a law that splits the People of South Dakota in 3 distinct districts - East, West, Central, or a North, South, and Central...Then, the Voters in each district elect their single choice for electors, back in line with the Constitution itself. Each District gets 1 Elector Each, who has to cast his/her vote for the popular vote in each District, whereas they also get their alternate pick for President, someone outside the State (Same for the Election of the Vice President).
Every position in the government should have some kind of term limit or mandatory retirement age.
As long as the old men in the legislature are able to flip back and forth in the legislative body we will not be bringing young people with new ideas into the discussions.
Although I would have probably voted for Sen. Hoffman’s term limits bill (I voted for them every time when I had a chance), too often, the “perpetual politician problem” is the uninformed voter.
This is especially true in statewide SD elections. The low information Red State GOP voter is much like the low information urban Blue State/City DEM voter (h/t Jesse Kelly): they often spend less time deciding whom to vote for than they would spend buying a washing machine; they show up once every 2-4 years to re-elect the same familiar politicians that didn’t fix anything since the last time they voted. And, properly, both groups will suffer the same fate: they get the government they deserve.
Thanks for your comment, sir. I acknowledge the "perpetual politician" and "uninformed voter" are related problems, but at least term limits addresses the former, whether they like it or not. Solving the latter is more difficult, but I'm also accountable to them, no matter how much information they have or lack. I regret I didn't have the opportunity to work with you, all the best. Sen. Hoffman
Same, senator. It sounds like we could have done business!
Brent, I have always believed term limits add to the growing problem, and always have opposed them. 1) if one knows he is term limited, he could easily campaign for, and raise money for his replacement, thus creating the ideal legacy candidate to protect his policy. 2) I believe our 2 year election cycle is sufficient enough to allow the voters to remove their representatives frequently.
Perhaps, change the Senate to be 6 Year Terms, maybe with 12 Year Limit; whereas i the State House they remain at 2 year terms with No term limit. This may allow the voters to be protected by restricting the Senate, but allow them to maintain their favorite candidates in the State House as long as they they choose to. How would this change the dynamics?
- Mike Zitterich
Minnehaha County
As to your first point, a politician may campaign for his replacement and raise money, with or without term limits. As to your second point, in concept, a 4-year term makes some sense, especially for the state senate, but that would create conflicting language with the "term limits" provision of "four consecutive terms." In my opinion, the better strategy, likely supported by voters, is to first enact real term limits (remove the "consecutive" language), and only later to then ask voters to increase the 2-year cycle to four years.
I like and support the 2 YR Election Cycle. I would not purposely do away with it. We need to hold elections every two years, so I would not be in favor of that.
I am really against term limits, and most likely not support them, but I was simply saying, if you wanted to shake things up in South Dakota, we should amend, or change our state laws to 'add' districts' - smaller is better, more conservative.
I would like to expand the State to 1 Senator Per 12,850 State Citizens. This gives us 70 Senators, and 140 Representatives. Giving the People a Larger Voice.
That requires a simple majority of 50%+1 to pass most initiatives 36 in the Senate, and 71 in the House, this would make it tougher to get some of the unconstitutional measures passed...
The more districts, the closer to the people the representatives become. The closer they get to the people, the more the people know them.
I would also favor placing the Senators to be chosen by means of "Party Caucauses" allowing them to be chosen in the same manner as the At-Large Statewide Officials, allowing for the Voters to elect them in the general election. THis would curb some of the campaign finance means of raising money.
I also want to see the U.S Senators appointed by the legislature, with more representatives, you would get a more conservative, natural chosen choice for the U.S Senate, the person the legislature chooses, then goes to a State General Ballot, allowing the voters to choose between two or more candidates.
I would also like to see the Electoral COllege go back to the "District Vote" rather than the Statewide Popular Vote. I would like to see the legislature adopt a law that splits the People of South Dakota in 3 distinct districts - East, West, Central, or a North, South, and Central...Then, the Voters in each district elect their single choice for electors, back in line with the Constitution itself. Each District gets 1 Elector Each, who has to cast his/her vote for the popular vote in each District, whereas they also get their alternate pick for President, someone outside the State (Same for the Election of the Vice President).
Get Back to the Constitution, plain and simple.
Mike Zitterich
Minnehaha County