Make the case for term limits

T

Tinkerpeach

New member
I would like those who believe in term limits to please explain the reasoning behind this.

If I have a representative in congress that is doing a great job why should he be forced out for someone who very well may be much worse for no other reason then he has spent a certain amount of time in his position.

As in all jobs, the more a person works at it the better they usually get generally so if I have a seasoned representative with a proven track record of positive accomplishments why should I be forced to pick a lesser experienced person to represent my interests in congress?

People often associate lengthy stays in congress with negative outcomes but oftentimes it is the opposite that happens.

Experienced representatives learn how the system works, they develop allies, and generally know how to get beneficial legislation passed much more easily than a person just entering into politics.

So please explain the reasoning why some of you want to force good people out of congress for no reason.
 
The case for term limits is a simple one.

And i am not saying everyone has to agree.

It has been shown that incumbents have an advantage, due to name recognition alone, even when people have no clue if the person is going a good job or not, or doing the things they want or not. That a lot of people are 'lazy' and do not take the time to dig below the covers.

SO by simply winning your race and your name being constantly repeated in news or other, you gain advantage over other competitors. This can potentially lead to the incumbent being lazy or even abusing their constituents and building up a consortium of sycophants and those willing to bribe them, knowing they will have near 'forever power'.

Term limits seek to minimize that type of thing. By forcing a 'start over' it can BREAK the chain of bribers and sycophants, and force change, or maybe just lead to a different group doing the same. But still the change as opposed to the FOREVER leader, tends to lead to more fair long term outcomes.
 
QP! said:
The case for term limits is a simple one.

And i am not saying everyone has to agree.

It has been shown that incumbents have an advantage, due to name recognition alone, even when people have no clue if the person is going a good job or not, or doing the things they want or not. That a lot of people are 'lazy' and do not take the time to dig below the covers.

SO by simply winning your race and your name being constantly repeated in news or other, you gain advantage over other competitors. This can potentially lead to the incumbent being lazy or even abusing their constituents and building up a consortium of sycophants and those willing to bribe them, knowing they will have near 'forever power'.

Term limits seek to minimize that type of thing. By forcing a 'start over' it can BREAK the chain of bribers and sycophants, and force change, or maybe just lead to a different group doing the same. But still the change as opposed to the FOREVER leader, tends to lead to more fair long term outcomes.
Click to expand...

It is not possible (or desirable) to have an election in which one candidate does not have an advantage. It could be a well-known celebrity, former president, community leader. Unless people can prove that somebody bribed their representative or senator, that is an often repeated but inaccurate claim.

The current turnover in Congress is about the same as it would be with term-limits. I have seen no improvement or decline by replacing former members with new names.
 
Could be an actual topic, but in the end, it comes down to substantial arguments on both sides, the two above pretty much displays both

Personally, I would recommend three year limits on Senators, 18 years enough, and four, not two, year terms for House representatives with a maximum of four terms, after 12 years the local guy should move up or out

I do believe the Founders never really though of the positions as permanent, but in those days, they had to adjourn half the time to return home to farm
 
archives said:
Could be an actual topic, but in the end, it comes down to substantial arguments on both sides, the two above pretty much displays both

Personally, I would recommend three year limits on Senators, 18 years enough, and four, not two, year terms for House representatives with a maximum of four terms, after 12 years the local guy should move up or out

I do believe the Founders never really though of the positions as permanent, but in those days, they had to adjourn half the time to return home to farm
Click to expand...

Opps, three terms of twelve years total
 
archives said:
Could be an actual topic, but in the end, it comes down to substantial arguments on both sides, the two above pretty much displays both

Personally, I would recommend three year limits on Senators, 18 years enough, and four, not two, year terms for House representatives with a maximum of four terms, after 12 years the local guy should move up or out

I do believe the Founders never really though of the positions as permanent, but in those days, they had to adjourn half the time to return home to farm
Click to expand...
They didn’t live as long, either.
 
I don’t think there should be lifetime appointment of judges. I agree with archives, 18 years for Senate, 12 years for the House.
 
Flash said:
It is not possible (or desirable) to have an election in which one candidate does not have an advantage.
Click to expand...
Agreed

It could be a well-known celebrity, former president, community leader. Unless people can prove that somebody bribed their representative or senator, that is an often repeated but inaccurate claim.
Click to expand...
Agreed

The current turnover in Congress is about the same as it would be with term-limits.
Click to expand...
Possibly but i was not speaking to Congress specifically and was speaking to the OP questions on term limits more generally.

There are many offices where incumbents and even the next generation of their kids can coast on name recognition alone. We know this as many campaigns have now learned to use 'name sake' candidates. They are choosing people to run simply because they have the name of someone that ran and held that office prior and they can see that gives a big lift. That many people are not paying attention beyond name recognition.




I have seen no improvement or decline by replacing former members with new names.
Click to expand...
Fine.

Does not change my view that generally speaking that 'perpetual incumbency can and does lead to familiarity'... 'familiarity can and does lead to improper influence' and that term limits can, in many instances break this chain.

Familiarity breeds contempt is a long held idiom for a reason. It is based on findings that over time, such familiarity is often exploited.
 
I don't believe in term limits and vehemently disagree with the 22nd Amendment.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was in my view our greatest president, was elected four times.

Trump would have probably never been president if Obama had run for a third term.
As of now, there's no way of being sure that America will ever recover from the Trump presidency.
That's on the 22nd Amendment.
 
QP! said:
The case for term limits is a simple one.

And i am not saying everyone has to agree.

It has been shown that incumbents have an advantage, due to name recognition alone, even when people have no clue if the person is going a good job or not, or doing the things they want or not. That a lot of people are 'lazy' and do not take the time to dig below the covers.

SO by simply winning your race and your name being constantly repeated in news or other, you gain advantage over other competitors. This can potentially lead to the incumbent being lazy or even abusing their constituents and building up a consortium of sycophants and those willing to bribe them, knowing they will have near 'forever power'.

Term limits seek to minimize that type of thing. By forcing a 'start over' it can BREAK the chain of bribers and sycophants, and force change, or maybe just lead to a different group doing the same. But still the change as opposed to the FOREVER leader, tends to lead to more fair long term outcomes.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that people are too stupid or lazy to figure out what their politicians are doing so you want the government to regulate it for them?
 
archives said:
Could be an actual topic, but in the end, it comes down to substantial arguments on both sides, the two above pretty much displays both

Personally, I would recommend three year limits on Senators, 18 years enough, and four, not two, year terms for House representatives with a maximum of four terms, after 12 years the local guy should move up or out

I do believe the Founders never really though of the positions as permanent, but in those days, they had to adjourn half the time to return home to farm
Click to expand...

Founders probably did not think of these positions as permanent, but look how many years people like Adams, Jefferson, and Washington spent in government positions.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
So what you are saying is that people are too stupid or lazy to figure out what their politicians are doing so you want the government to regulate it for them?
Click to expand...

Most people do not even know the names of their elected officials and can't name how they voted on a single issue. This is true with or without term limits.

Studies of state legislatures that passed term limits found that it increased the power of interest groups and staff because the member was less experienced in legislative affairs.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
So what happens at 18 years and 12 years that makes you decide that is the point to draw the line?
Click to expand...

Nothing magical, but seems an arbitrary benchmark to prevent a person from becoming a professional politician, making them pursue something else to define their lives
 
"Professional politician" sounds perverse as a sobriquet or appellation,
but it also means "career public servant,"
and there have been some relatively good ones.
 
Flash said:
Most people do not even know the names of their elected officials and can't name how they voted on a single issue. This is true with or without term limits.

Studies of state legislatures that passed term limits found that it increased the power of interest groups and staff because the member was less experienced in legislative affairs.
Click to expand...

Don’t know about the studies, nor denying them, but on local levels, Mayor and whatever legislative body, in many States to include Governors, term limits are usually the norm, and it seems to work even the expected hiccups at the offset due to inexperience
 
NiftyNiblick said:
"Professional politician" sounds perverse as a sobriquet or appellation,
but it also means "career public servant,"
and there have been some relatively good ones.
Click to expand...

And a whole lot of bad ones

There is career ladder, if you are good, run for the next level up, with each position having openings with term limits, if not, apply your talent in supporting fields
 
NiftyNiblick said:
"Professional politician" sounds perverse as a sobriquet or appellation,
but it also means "career public servant,"
and there have been some relatively good ones.
Click to expand...

One can still be a "career public servant" working within term limits, they just would have to win election to more than one position. For instance, AOC will likely be a career politician but will also never be other than the representative of a single district for an entire career, with term limits AOC would have to appeal to more than the one district, to become a better "public servant", or she would have to go backwards in office to smaller offices within that district.
 
archives said:
And a whole lot of bad ones

There is career ladder, if you are good, run for the next level up, with each position having openings with term limits, if not, apply your talent in supporting fields
Click to expand...

It's like the corporate ladder?
Keep going up until you get to a job that you can't do
and then either get let go
or continue to fuck up until you retire?

I believe in people who are good at something
sticking with it
for as long as they retain their enthusiasm for it.

We do have elections. In a democratic republic, we get the government we deserve,
so our general electorate are the ones with the most explaining to do.
Blaming the politicians before ourselves doesn't make sense to me.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
So what you are saying is that people are too stupid or lazy to figure out what their politicians are doing so you want the government to regulate it for them?
Click to expand...

A lot of people are too stupid and lazy to figure out what their politicians are doing, yes. That is a fact not in dispute. Many people vote via 'team' and could not tell you what the people they vote for stand for in local, State and Federal elections.

And regulation is part of government by default. The word 'government' has embedded within it 'regulation' as that is what governments do... they regulate aspects of society.

So the better question is do we want government to ONLY regulate us the citizens or also themselves via term limits. I respect that others who are not me, may hold differing views. That is fine. I am telling you my view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top