[Steve_Seattle]

Given the length of modern political campaigns, four year terms makes more sense than two, but I would only support this if there were a three-term limit included as part of the deal. On the other hand, maybe we should just try to figure out a way to shorten the campaign season. However, in this era of "the permanent campaign," I am not sure how that would be done.

[Ditto]

Given the length of modern political campaigns, four year terms makes more sense than two, but I would only support this if there were a three-term limit included as part of the deal.

I'd go for it if the amendment also doubled or trippled the size of the House. Today, we have 1 Rep for every 5 or 6 hundred thousand people vs 1 for every hundred thousand a century ago.

Smaller districts would be "more representative", reduce campaign cost, be more competitive, and make it lots harder to Jerrymander.

[Teacher317]

On the other hand, maybe we should just try to figure out a way to shorten the campaign season. However, in this era of "the permanent campaign," I am not sure how that would be done.

Easy... a limit of ONE term. Then NO campaigning will EVER distract a representative from his job for even a single DAY. If America could find sufficient representatives when we had one rep for every 10,000 citizens, I think we can get by now that we have 500,000 to choose from for every post.

That goes for the Senate, as well. The Presidency can still go for two terms, since that is a place for individual leadership, and often it takes more than 4 years to make progress.