U.S. needs more wise voters who care
by The Brunswick News
May 27, 2013 10:13 PM | 1191 views | 1 1 comments | 9 9 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Another member of the U.S. House of Representatives has introduced yet another bill in a futile attempt to limit how long members of Congress can stay in office. The measure, authored by Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.), would limit House members to three terms, or six years, and senators to two terms, or 12 years.

Since the change would require a constitutional amendment, two-thirds of Congress would have to approve it followed by ratification of three-fourths of the 50 states. That’s a long road for any legislation to have to travel, which is as it should be when talking about altering the U.S. Constitution.

There’s a better way to achieve this objective. What’s needed are men and women vying for office who are more concerned about their nation, about the future of all Americans, and less about their own political careers.

In other words, the nation needs statesmen.

Capping how much money can be spent on elections and re-elections also could prove beneficial to the American public. Spending millions of dollars on political contests is absolutely ridiculous, even for members of Congress and even in the USA.

What’s needed above all else are wise voters — men and women who care enough about the future of their nation to take the time to look beyond political labels and study the candidates. Voting along party lines is not working out so well for the country.

We have advanced in our ability to protect ourselves from foreign aggressors with state-of-the-art weapons, but that has been about the extent of this country’s advancement.

Our infrastructure remains in a state of meltdown, children in public schools are still not getting the education a country of our means can afford and years later we are still debating what to do about undocumented immigrants and how to manage — properly manage — the nation’s budget.
Comments
(1)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
readmopaper
|
May 28, 2013
There are some positions for which candidates do not need huge sums of campaign money. Examples are Pope and Dictator. In these cases all the voters are well acquainted with all the potential candidates. In the case of dictators, one eligible voter and one potential candidate (one person). In our system of elections a candidate spends lots of money or no one will know he or she exists. There are too many barriers between voters and candidates that require money to overcome. If you want to neutralize the effect of money in campaigns, find a way for candidates to reach voters without spending tons of money.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides