What's the argument for term limits?

NiftyNiblick

NiftyNiblick

1960s Chick Magnet
I absolutely don't agree with them.

I resolutely oppose the 22nd Amendment.

We have elections.
We can limit the term of any office holder with those.

Ted Kennedy won eight 6 year term Senate races in Massachusetts, although he didn't live to finish the last one, plus a special election for a partial term in 1962.

I was actually too young to vote for him in 1962 and 1964, no 18-year old vote yet for the latter,
but I voted for him in 1970, 1976, 1982. 1988, 1994, 2000, and 2006.

How was it anybody's business to tell his Massachusetts constituents that they couldn't vote for him?

FDR, possibly the greatest of all US Presidents, was elected four times.
He would have been President when I was born if he lived to complete his last term.

Terms limits have no reason to exist.
 
Term limits end the current career politician track. Sure, a politician can move from elected position to position, but they can't become an entrenched entity that gains evermore power within any particular part of the government. It turns being elected from being a career to being a temporary job one volunteers to do.

I'd also say that we should eliminate most or all retirement perks for politicians once term limits are in place. No more golden parachute for doing a mediocre job in office.

The objective of all this is to eliminate politicians becoming perpetual bureaucrats along with their need to pander to special interests and political donors to remain in office. When they know they can only stay for a set of limited terms and get nothing in terms of a lifetime reward for that, they will have more reason to focus on the job at hand rather than some long-term strategizing to make their elected office a career.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I absolutely don't agree with them.

I resolutely oppose the 22nd Amendment.

We have elections.
We can limit the term of any office holder with those.

Ted Kennedy won eight 6 year term Senate races in Massachusetts, although he didn't live to finish the last one, plus a special election for a partial term in 1962.

I was actually too young to vote for him in 1962 and 1964, no 18-year old vote yet for the latter,
but I voted for him in 1970, 1976, 1982. 1988, 1994, 2000, and 2006.

How was it anybody's business to tell his Massachusetts constituents that they couldn't vote for him?

FDR, possibly the greatest of all US Presidents, was elected four times.
He would have been President when I was born if he lived to complete his last term.

Terms limits have no reason to exist.
Click to expand...

we need term limits to curb corruption. it's obvious.
 
Fifteen states have term-limited state legislatures (two have repealed the limit). Studies in those states show power has shifted to staff and interest groups due to less experienced legislators; power has also shifted to the executive branch and upper chamber; lessened links between legislators and constituents because they spend less time on casework and communication.
 
there are only two arguments regarding term limits.....

I don't like my congressman but other people keep voting for him = I support term limits
I like my congressman = I do not support term limits
 
Term limits kind of remind me of compulsory voting. If people don't want to vote, why force them? By the same logic, if it can be reasonably assumed that term limits are needed to limit corruption, then maybe the problem isn't the number of terms.

The problem might just be elections themselves.
 
Flash said:
Fifteen states have term-limited state legislatures (two have repealed the limit). Studies in those states show power has shifted to staff and interest groups due to less experienced legislators; power has also shifted to the executive branch and upper chamber; lessened links between legislators and constituents because they spend less time on casework and communication.
Click to expand...

it's still better. and you need to elect a candidate with balls to stand up to careerist apparatchiks.
 
Pax Mongolica said:
Term limits kind of remind me of compulsory voting. If people don't want to vote, why force them? By the same logic, if it can be reasonably assumed that term limits are needed to limit corruption, then maybe the problem isn't the number of terms.

The problem might just be elections themselves.
Click to expand...

this is dumb on many levels.
 
AssHatZombie said:
this is dumb on many levels.
Click to expand...

How so? If the argument is that the people can't be trusted to elect the same people over and over again, then it begs the question of why the same people are being elected again and again.

Some would claim that it's due to the approval of the public. If that's the case, then wouldn't term limits go against the basic principle of democracy?

On the other hand, if the actual reason the same people get elected again and again is due to either gerrymandering or the corruptible structure of "first past the post" elections, then clearly, term limits wouldn't solve the problem.
 
Pax Mongolica said:
How so? If the argument is that the people can't be trusted to elect the same people over and over again, then it begs the question of why the same people are being elected again and again.

Some would claim that it's due to the approval of the public. If that's the case, then wouldn't term limits go against the basic principle of democracy?

On the other hand, if the actual reason the same people get elected again and again is due to either gerrymandering or the corruptible structure of "first past the post" elections, then clearly, term limits wouldn't solve the problem.
Click to expand...

if you believe it's an error to keep electing the same people, then this is a partial corrective. the full corrective, eliminating elections all together, is completely disenfranchising.

sometimes the right dose is the right dose.
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
if you believe it's an error to keep electing the same people. then this is a partial corrective. the full corrective, eliminating elections all together, is completely disenfranchising.

sometimes the right dose is the right dose.
Click to expand...

Some of the reason for why the public keeps electing the same people over and over again at the Congressional level is due to the fact that important committee positions are given to members according to seniority. There's a strong incentive to support incumbents for that reason, if you want your state or district to get more federal funding for one project or another.

If committee positions weren't based on seniority, then that incentive would be less prevalent.
 
Pax Mongolica said:
Some of the reason for why the public keeps electing the same people over and over again at the Congressional level is due to the fact that important committee positions are given to members according to seniority. There's a strong incentive to support incumbents for that reason, if you want your state or district to get more federal funding for one project or another.

If committee positions weren't based on seniority, then that incentive would be less prevalent.
Click to expand...

committees should be less powerful, yes.
 
AssHatZombie said:
committees should be less powerful, yes.
Click to expand...

The committees themselves are probably inevitable. They are an organic component of how legislation and regulation are designed. But seniority doesn't have to be the primary qualification for being a committee chair. It would make a lot more sense to just base it off of educational background and/or experience with the affected topic.

Experience itself has a seniority component, but obviously, that can cover time spent outside of being in office.

Nevertheless, if voters knew that electing someone new wouldn't necessarily mean losing influence for their state or district, there would probably be shorter durations of time spent in office in Congress by each member, and politicians themselves would have less reason to keep running for the same office.
 
Pax Mongolica said:
The committees themselves are probably inevitable. They are an organic component of how legislation and regulation are designed. But seniority doesn't have to be the primary qualification for being a committee chair. It would make a lot more sense to just base it off of educational background and/or experience with the affected topic.

Experience itself has a seniority component, but obviously, that can cover time spent outside of being in office.

Nevertheless, if voters knew that electing someone new wouldn't necessarily mean losing influence for their state or district, there would probably be shorter durations of time spent in office in Congress by each member, and politicians themselves would have less reason to keep running for the same office.
Click to expand...

nothing's inevitable.
 
There are term limits, it's called voting.
The real issue is politicians picking their voters..................................... gerrymandering.
They should have an independent commission or an equal number of people of both parties deciding voter districts.
They should be designed in square blocks.
Not anything that resembles a lake going into a river, then expands into another lake, that narrows to a drainage ditch, only to expand again into a pond.
 
AssHatZombie said:
nothing's inevitable.
Click to expand...
The entire system is fubar and about to collapse so term limits are the least of our problems. Benjamin Franklin said "We need a revolution every 200 years, because all governments become stale and corrupt after 200 years" but Franklin was forced to walk it back because government is legalized corruption. We get the government we deserve.

History tells us that all empires fall from within and that ethics has a very slim chance at being part of rebuilding. This became clear with the corruption at the top of BLM and Oath Keepers. We the people need to accept the fact that the lack of virtue in our leaders is what led us to anarchy. Reform needs to start with the principles of those at the local level.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Term limits end the current career politician track. Sure, a politician can move from elected position to position, but they can't become an entrenched entity that gains evermore power within any particular part of the government. It turns being elected from being a career to being a temporary job one volunteers to do.

I'd also say that we should eliminate most or all retirement perks for politicians once term limits are in place. No more golden parachute for doing a mediocre job in office.

The objective of all this is to eliminate politicians becoming perpetual bureaucrats along with their need to pander to special interests and political donors to remain in office. When they know they can only stay for a set of limited terms and get nothing in terms of a lifetime reward for that, they will have more reason to focus on the job at hand rather than some long-term strategizing to make their elected office a career.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. Everyone of us has learned in grade school that the first president was a "farmer" before he was a president. The whole idea was to elect regular people to serve for a short time as they did the work of the people. It was not to establish a body of career politicians who are so far removed from the rest of us and our concerns that they serve only to perpetuate their own power. The post-service benefits need to go, too. Where else would you work for a mere two years, lose your job, and still receive benefits for life? If we restore Congress to what it was meant to be -- regular people elected to represent other regular people -- maybe we won't have the f'd up mess that we have now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top