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.
It seems today more than ever that term limits should be re-examined for members of Congress. It seems that today's politicians are not as interested in serving the people as they are in prolonging their political careers. Re-election rates for incumbents often exceed 90%.
What are your thoughts? Is the experience of long time members of Congress more important to you or is having a member with a limited time to accomplish their goals the way to go?
Of course changes term limits will probably never happen because Congress would have to pass it. No one would vote to eliminate their own job!
I'm sure this thread has been done many times before, but I think it is worth revisiting.
The American voter has proven to be incapeable of doing the appropriate research to make an educated decision. Term limits will aid in erasing some of the dangerous results of that lack of knowledge on the voter's part.
It's kind of been done to death, but here are some thoughts:
1. You don't see any problem in telling the voters they can't elect the representative they want just because he or she has been there for two or four years? That doesn't strike you as just the tiniest bit undemocratic?
2. If you limit the tenure of Congress to two or three terms you guarantee that Congress will be made up of people who don't know what they're talking about. Guess who does stay longer and does know what they're talking about: lobbyists. Do you really want to give them more power than they already have?
3. The last flurry of term-limit fever was when a bunch of Republicans running on Gingrich's Contract On America promised to limit their own terms. Most of them thought better of it once they were the ones in power.
You have to be careful in how the term limits are worded. Louisiana voted to enact term limits on the legislature. The legislature enacted the term limits but worded the legislation in such a way as to allow the politician to leave one house of congress and then run for the other. A state Senator could then become a Representative and vise versa. They hope to use their name recognition to get re-elected to the new office. In the federal legislature, I'd say a limit of twelve years for both houses of congress, two terms for Senate and six terms for the House.
It's kind of been done to death, but here are some thoughts:
1. You don't see any problem in telling the voters they can't elect the representative they want just because he or she has been there for two or four years? That doesn't strike you as just the tiniest bit undemocratic?
2. If you limit the tenure of Congress to two or three terms you guarantee that Congress will be made up of people who don't know what they're talking about. Guess who does stay longer and does know what they're talking about: lobbyists. Do you really want to give them more power than they already have?
3. The last flurry of term-limit fever was when a bunch of Republicans running on Gingrich's Contract On America promised to limit their own terms. Most of them thought better of it once they were the ones in power.
All good points.
There is a way to manage terms, vote them out.
It's kind of been done to death, but here are some thoughts:
1. You don't see any problem in telling the voters they can't elect the representative they want just because he or she has been there for two or four years? That doesn't strike you as just the tiniest bit undemocratic?
2. If you limit the tenure of Congress to two or three terms you guarantee that Congress will be made up of people who don't know what they're talking about. Guess who does stay longer and does know what they're talking about: lobbyists. Do you really want to give them more power than they already have?
3. The last flurry of term-limit fever was when a bunch of Republicans running on Gingrich's Contract On America promised to limit their own terms. Most of them thought better of it once they were the ones in power.
1. Doesn't that make the 2 term limit for the President undemocratic?
2. I actually think that flushing out the lobbyists might be a good thing. It would be nice to see politicians representing the people as opposed to corporations.
3. I agree that it is easier said than done. No one in power is going to boot themselves out.
In its current form the Constitution does not allow term limits. A Constitutional Ammendment is required. I don't think it will ever pass.
Look on the other side. A congressman can only serve x terms. Why not get as much pork for my state as I can while I am here. There is no reason not to try.
1) For starters why should someone be replaced just because they have been at the job for a given period of time? We don't do this with most other jobs. Do you change doctors, insurance agents, or auto mechanics every few years just to make a change regardless of how well they may be performing their job? Change for the better, not for the sake of change.
2) I believe term limits could promote complacency. How well would you perform your job if you knew you would be terminated in six months regardless of your performance? Now, how well would you perform your job if you knew you were up for a review and a contract extension in six months? The fact that these representatives are up for re-evaluation by the electorate every two or six years ideally keeps them focused on their constituents' needs and their own job performance. Term limits could give them a lazy, "to-hell-with-it" kind of attitude.
3) We have term limits here in Michigan for our state legislature and state senate. I have heard and read of two problems that have arisen from this law;
a) The representative often lacks the experience and knowledge necessary to fully comprehend an issue and make a competent decision on that issue. This puts a strain on the various agency and department heads and field specialists to continually have to "educate" and inform new representatives. Term-limited politicians do not have the opportunity to acquire in-depth knowledge of the subject matter of the committees that they sit on, e.g agriculture, budget, labor, commerce, etc.
b) In some cases while the representative has to leave office, he or she is replaced by a family member. For example John Doe Sr. can not run again so his wife Mary Doe or his son John Doe Jr. runs and wins due in large part to name recognition by the voters. Now you have a new representative that is probably not much different in political ideology but is a whole lot less experienced and less versed in how government operates.
4) "Re-election rates for incumbents often exceed 90%."
While this is often true, ask yourself, who re-elects these incumbents? We the voters always have the power to return a representative to the legislature or not. Do you keep ordering the same selection at a restaurant if you do not like it? If they are being re-elected 90% of the time it is because either the electorate is satisfied with the representative's job performance or they are not willing to take a chance on an opposing candidate. Government responsibility in a democracy begins with the citizen-voter. Term limits also limit the voter's power to select the best candidate. Term limits are undemocratic.
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.
