What's the argument for term limits?

[NiftyNiblick]

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.

[T. A. Gardner]

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.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

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.

we need term limits to curb corruption. it's obvious.

[Geeko Sportivo]

we need term limits to curb corruption. it's obvious.

We better break out the champagne- because we just agreed!

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

We better break out the champagne- because we just agreed!

:champagne:

[Flash]

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.

[PostmodernProphet]

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

[Pax Mongolica]

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.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

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.

it's still better. and you need to elect a candidate with balls to stand up to careerist apparatchiks.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

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.

this is dumb on many levels.

[Pax Mongolica]

this is dumb on many levels.

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.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

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.

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.

[Pax Mongolica]

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.

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.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

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.

committees should be less powerful, yes.

[Pax Mongolica]

committees should be less powerful, yes.

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.