Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see much of a need for term limit laws, because it seems the people are able to choose for themselves how long someone should stay in office. In my state, the incumbent senator was kicked out, and that pattern repeated itself across the country. I understand the rationale for term limit laws, but I don't think they're necessary, normally.
There is a place for them, but the limits have to be long. Eight years for the House and two terms for the Senate are too short; I would put a limit of a total of 30 years. Shorter than that, it gives the bureauracy and the lobbyists too much power since it can take years to learn the details of govt programs and operations.
Term limits sound great, but might cause new problems. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that reelection is the single biggest motivator for MCs. Take that away and I wonder if constituents might suffer as their representatives fail to actually represent them. If they're headed back out to the curb after one or two terms, anyway, there'd be less incentive to act on constituent interest in the legislature, perform casework, etc. Plus, like another poster said, it's a pretty arcane bureaucracy, and tough to navigate, even for veterans. A constant crop of freshmen would be rough...
Consider this approach instead of traditional term limits
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. One of the more frequent complants is that once inside the beltway multi-term elected officials have the tendency to lose touch with the realities of the average American living outside the beltway and become "elitists".
So, we know serving too long tends to distance the elected representative from the constituents he/she was elected to serve as well as possibly increase the likelihood of corruption. The conundrum comes in that there is also a learning curve and for House Representatives, who serve shorter terms, their learning curve is just completing at the time it is time to be up for re-election.
Since the first half of elected terms seem to be spent learning (first term) or getting work done and the last full year or two of a term is spent campaigning for re-election I offer up this alternative for consideration:
Consider rather than term limits a different kind of "regulation" on the elected representatives. Allow potential elected public servants at the federal level to run as many terms as they wish with the following absolute caveate (which would have to become law to be enforceable):
They may never serve more than two consecutive terms in any elected or appointed federal office nor may be permitted to be employed as lobbiest or employee of a company bidding for federal contracts in the two years immediately following serving in either an elected or appointed federal office.
This would solve the problem of elected or appointed public servants running for re-election on the public time and dime. It would also limit the possible inappropriate influence or conflict of interest of recent high level elected and appointed federal officials.
Michigan has term limits for all of its elected government officials.
The professional politicians simply changed from sitting in one office for 35 years to working to get elected "up the ladder". Joe Politician would get elected to a city or county position. When Joe max out at that level, then he'd move up to the State House elections. If he was elected, then he'd ride that out to the term limit and then run for State Senate. After that, it's either governor or US House.
Bottom line is that in Michigan term limits haven't stopped the incessant electioneering, just changed which races the politicians ran in each cycle.
Would term limits help solve our problem with gov't officials being more worried about their next election than actually governing?
What are the positions from both sides?
no, wouldn't solve anything. and the occasional good candidate would be lost to us too soon. besides they would just jump from one seat to another and then back again.
better we take ALL money out of elections. The money has corrupted them all. Give all candidates a small budget and free air time to make their case.
So your proposal is that we should tell the voters that, as a matter of law, they are prohibited to vote for the candidate of their choice?
No, thank you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Consider this approach instead of traditional term limits
