Term Limits

[Dob]

One of my facebook "friends" posted this on his wall and be the curious type I went and read it.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition...ebate/TJg8fxXf

I'm not against the idea of Term Limits but with something as intricate and confusing as the politics are in America, do we really want new folks being elected to run this country ever 6-12 years?

I shudder to think at the number of Bachmann's that might get elected in such a situation. But I'm tempted to sign it anyway (not that it will change the system mind you.. but at least for support).

So what does the electoral brain here in SD country think? Good, bad, even?

[Jack Batty]

Personally, I'm all for term limits.

I think 'new blood' is a good idea. Yeah, you'd get a Bachmann here and there, but they'd be limited to how long they could fuck things up ... and you'd do away with Senator Methuselah on his 25th term, talking into the machine and trying to sponsor bills to boost Green Stamps sales or some shit like that.

[Simplicio]

I'm against. I don't really see what good it would do, our political system is amaturish enough without going out of our way to find more literal amateurs to put in it.

Plus I think it would incentivize politicians to suck up to rich interests as quickly and as shamelessly as possible, since they know that they'll need a new job in a couple years, know they have limited time to suck up and impress contacts that can get them those jobs and know that even if they alienate voters, they won't be able to use those voters to get re-elected more then once anyways.

[River Hippie]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

....Plus I think it would incentivize politicians to suck up to rich interests as quickly and as shamelessly as possible, since they know that they'll need a new job in a couple years, know they have limited time to suck up and impress contacts that can get them those jobs and know that even if they alienate voters, they won't be able to use those voters to get re-elected more then once anyways.

Agree with this. My sister the Tea Partier and term limit supporter says I'm too cynical. But as Lily Tomlin said..."No matter how cynical you get, you can never keep up!"

[BrainGlutton]

I recall an editorial cartoon from 1995 or so (after the "Contract With America" Republican midterm wins) -- an elephant in a wedding tux, in a carriage with a "Just Married" banner, wearing an innocent "Who, me?" rolleyes expression, is kicking to the curb an astonished bride labeled "Term Limits."

[suranyi]

We've had term limits in the California legislature for a couple of decades now and, in my opinion, its been a disaster.

Sure, we get a lot of new blood all the time. But mostly these are inexperienced dumpkopfs who don't know how the heck to run a government. Anyone with a little bit of knowledge about how to get things done shuttles from the Assembly to the State Senate, or vice-versa, until they are completely termed out.

As for the idea that term limits would reduce polarization, that's the biggest laugh of all. Since the newbies have no history for the voters to look at, the only thing they can point to is their political party. So they act as partisan as possible. The legislatature has never been as polarized as it is now.

[Face Intentionally Left Blank]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Plus I think it would incentivize politicians to suck up to rich interests as quickly and as shamelessly as possible, since they know that they'll need a new job in a couple years, know they have limited time to suck up and impress contacts that can get them those jobs and know that even if they alienate voters, they won't be able to use those voters to get re-elected more then once anyways.

This has always been my greatest fear about term limits. You think politicians are corrupt NOW? They won't even be slightly circumspect about it if re-election is no longer a worry.

[Clothahump]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

Personally, I'm all for term limits.

I think 'new blood' is a good idea. Yeah, you'd get a Bachmann here and there, but they'd be limited to how long they could fuck things up ... and you'd do away with Senator Methuselah on his 25th term, talking into the machine and trying to sponsor bills to boost Green Stamps sales or some shit like that.

Agreed. Do we really need more Strom Thurmonds in the Congress? Keeping people with fresh ideas coming in is a good thing, not to mention it would cripple the good-old-boy, business-as-usual crap that goes on now.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Do we really need more Strom Thurmonds in the Congress?

Surely, that's for the voters of South Carolina to decide.

I do recall Jesse Helms objecting to giving the District of Columbia full representation in Congress because the people of D.C. "weren't ready" to exercise their votes responsibly. To be fair, at the time, I thought the same thing about the voters of North Carolina -- I thought it would be a fair exchange to keep D.C.'s status quo if North Carolina was willing to give up its own representation until it "learned" how to vote properly.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I do recall Jesse Helms objecting to giving the District of Columbia full representation in Congress because the people of D.C. "weren't ready" to exercise their votes responsibly.

What year was it he could get away with saying that?! It sounds like a classic defense of Apartheid or some third-world dictatorship.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

What year was it he could get away with saying that?! It sounds like a classic defense of Apartheid or some third-world dictatorship.

It was Jesse Helms, so anywhere from the time he was first elected to office in 1858, up to his retirement.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

Agreed. Do we really need more Strom Thurmonds in the Congress?

Suppose Strom Thurmond had been term limited. You would still have had the same voters. Voters who voted for him repeatedly. So isn't it likely that they would have elected someone similar in his place?

Term limits won't stop people from making stupid choices.

[Skammer]

I'm against them. We already have a mechanism in place to limit terms: regular elections. And yeah, I know the incumbent has all the advantages and wins most of the time, but there's still the opportunity to boot him or her out every couple of years.

There are few enough GOOD politicians already, I hate to lose them just because they're only allowed to serve two terms or whatever. It's counterproductive.

Plus, having to face the voters for re-election makes the politicians more accountable to the voters. Like Simplicio said, office holders with no opportunity for re-election are not accountable to anyone except those they can profit from.

[dorsk188]

Originally Posted by Skammer

I'm against them. We already have a mechanism in place to limit terms: regular elections.

Agreed. (Also, I agree with the rest of your post, snipped to save digital ink.)

Term limits are an emotional reaction to a set of very real problems. But "throw the bums out" doesn't do anything when there is an endless supply of bums to replace them. Really no different than the "we need a business person to run this country like a business" or any of a dozen other bumper-sticker instincts people sign on to without good reason.

As to the OP, I am sympathetic to the desire for significant structural change. I supported the earmark ban, even though it was a meager part of the budget and only shifted the budget decisions to the executive, but if there's some chance it shakes things up in a positive way, I'm interested. Term limits just don't work.

[Zakalwe]

Florida has had the same experience with term limits.

Inexperienced pols, rabid polarization, shameless pandering to money, and a refusal to make "short term pain, long term gain" decisions.

It also has the effect of marginalizing any rural areas of the state. North Florida has a relatively low population as opposed to South Florida, our counter-balance used to be that we had long-term pols that eventually gained some political power. Now, South Fl just does what they want and ignores the "few" North Florida votes.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

North Florida has a relatively low population as opposed to South Florida, our counter-balance used to be that we had long-term pols that eventually gained some political power.

I see this as the problem. Long termers have "more power" than new blood. It's a disincentive to voting the bums out.

I may have a new rep with fresh ideas but he won't get anything done, and my district will lose whatever advantages we had under Old Codger.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by dorsk188

Term limits are an emotional reaction to a set of very real problems. But "throw the bums out" doesn't do anything when there is an endless supply of bums to replace them. Really no different than the "we need a business person to run this country like a business" or any of a dozen other bumper-sticker instincts people sign on to without good reason.

This. Populist notions should be treated with suspicion. Sound ideas for good governance are apt to sound a at least a little geeky.

[Damuri Ajashi]

I once thought that term limits but they're not.

It makes parties more powerful and makes representatives more beholden to their party.

I would rather see proportional representation in congress and state legislatures.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

I once thought that term limits but they're not.

....SYNTAX ERROR....SYNTAX ERROR....SYNTAX ERROR

Abort, Retry, Reboot...

[dropzone]

For ages my Rep was Henry Hyde. Disagreed with much (all) of what he said, but he brought home the pork.

Most of which he ate.

[kaylasdad99]

With term limits in California (and I can confirm that suranyi's opinion bears a one-to-one correspondence with objective reality), among other "unintended" consequences, the only people with the political savvy and experience to operate the levers of governance are lobbyists (and, to the degree that they are passed down from outgoing to incoming officeholders, legislative staffers).

The sharp-eyed observer will note that none of the above people are put into place by the electorate.

[Measure for Measure]

The California experience refutes the OP.

Originally Posted by suranyi

We've had term limits in the California legislature for a couple of decades now and, in my opinion, its been a disaster.

Sure, we get a lot of new blood all the time. But mostly these are inexperienced dumpkopfs who don't know how the heck to run a government. Anyone with a little bit of knowledge about how to get things done shuttles from the Assembly to the State Senate, or vice-versa, until they are completely termed out.

As for the idea that term limits would reduce polarization, that's the biggest laugh of all. Since the newbies have no history for the voters to look at, the only thing they can point to is their political party. So they act as partisan as possible. The legislature has never been as polarized as it is now.

Also, it doesn't discourage professional politicians. What happens is politicians hop from job to job, gathering experience in none of them. Furthermore, they refuse to make tough decisions, because they know they will have to fight a tough race in a new position in a few years.

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

With term limits in California (and I can confirm that suranyi's opinion bears a one-to-one correspondence with objective reality), among other "unintended" consequences, the only people with the political savvy and experience to operate the levers of governance are lobbyists (and, to the degree that they are passed down from outgoing to incoming officeholders, legislative staffers).

The sharp-eyed observer will note that none of the above people are put into place by the electorate.

Finally there is zero accountability. None. The legislature made some piss-poor decisions with electricity deregulation during the late 1990s for example: it bit the state in the ass around 2001. No politician paid any price: they had basically all term limited out.


If experience didn't matter and term limits were such a wonderful idea, they would have them in the private sector.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

If experience didn't matter and term limits were such a wonderful idea, they would have them in the private sector.

Yeah, I hadn't thought of this. Term limits for office holders can only begin to work if they are balanced with term limits for lobbyists and managers and representatives of large corporations.

[Dob]

Thanks all. I was actually not aware of term limits in FL and CA... but that does explain a lot. Consider my ignorance defeated for today at least.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Dob

Thanks all. I was actually not aware of term limits in FL and CA... but that does explain a lot. Consider my ignorance defeated for today at least.

I'm another California resident who can echo what has already been posted.

I think the root cause for term limits is the view of many people that being a legislator is not having a real job. All they see is the bloviating and the voting, they don't see committee meetings and research and support for constituents. It is why some people have a fit when high level government officials - who command staff and budgets rivaling large corporations - get paid salaries of middle managers in industry.

Term limit for Steve Jobs? Terrible idea? For a senator? Great idea. Feh.

[kunilou]

We've decided we hate politics so much that it's better to have paid lobbyists as the people who understand the legislative process.

Seriously, thanks to term limits, the lobbyists know what's in a law better than the lawmakers. And I'm making a non-partisan slam. When I worked for an advocacy group, our policy director had worked in the field for 30 years and knew the ins and out of our particular "special interest." Thanks to term limits, the only people in state government with as much knowledge were a few veteran "bureaucrats" whose jobs the legislators were constantly trying to eliminate.

The speaker of our state legislature once denied she was in the pocket of conservative special interests by pointing out that she had BOTH conservative and liberal interest groups on her speed dial. Is this really how we want to run our government?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by kunilou

The speaker of our state legislature once denied she was in the pocket of conservative special interests by pointing out that she had BOTH conservative and liberal interest groups on her speed dial. Is this really how we want to run our government?

Certainly, if she followed up with, "And I always get the opinions of both before making a decision."

[BrainGlutton]

I say, if we are to have term limits, they should not be lifetime limits. I.e., you serve a term in Congress, you sit out a term, you can run for the same seat again next cycle. You and a friend in your own party might even simply, publicly agree to alternate in the office so long as your party holds the district. (In the interim, you might fill your time by holding some local office, or private-sector work.) That way the incumbency advantage is broken, which is the whole point of term limits; but, instead of a bunch of amateur "citizen legislators," we always have a large pool of experienced legislative talent in office and out of office.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I say, if we are to have term limits, they should not be lifetime limits. I.e., you serve a term in Congress, you sit out a term, you can run for the same seat again next cycle. You and a friend in your own party might even simply, publicly agree to alternate in the office so long as your party holds the district. (In the interim, you might fill your time by holding some local office, or private-sector work.) That way the incumbency advantage is broken, which is the whole point of term limits; but, instead of a bunch of amateur "citizen legislators," we always have a large pool of experienced legislative talent in office and out of office.

Not sure how much the incumbency advantage would actually be broken. Alabama's requirement that the governor sit out one term between terms looked like it was being gotten around by the fact that Lurleen Wallace succeeded her husband George in the office. Had she not died during the term (and had George not been tooling up for his spoiler role in the 1968 Presidential election), they might have swapped it back and forth for years.

[dorsk188]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

I say, if we are to have term limits, they should not be lifetime limits. I.e., you serve a term in Congress, you sit out a term, you can run for the same seat again next cycle. You and a friend in your own party might even simply, publicly agree to alternate in the office so long as your party holds the district. (In the interim, you might fill your time by holding some local office, or private-sector work.) That way the incumbency advantage is broken, which is the whole point of term limits; but, instead of a bunch of amateur "citizen legislators," we always have a large pool of experienced legislative talent in office and out of office.

There is a common arrangement like this in Virginia, which has a single 4 year term limit on governors. If there's an outgoing Democratic governor, they often run for mayor of Richmond, and the mayor runs for governor. You can ask Virginians how well that works out for them.

There will always be an incumbent advantage as they are known quantities. If the voters like what they have, they can keep it. Other advantages (fundraising, connections, etc.) should be tackled through targeted legislation, I think. For a start, public funding of elections would do wonders.

[howye]

In Ohio, with term limits the longest serving politicians simply move to new positions. Termed out as a state rep? Run next as a state senator! When that is done, try for a state wide job, or one of the many elected court positions or county commissioner. In other words not so much new blood as any expected.

Where new people have moved in to the system, they have been highly polarized. The state has been gerrymandered to within an inch of its life. There is no need to ever move to the middle, most office seekers need only win the Republican primary. Nothing new, but now they have no incentive to work with the few Democrats, moderate Republicans, or anybody who disagrees with them. If you are only going to be in that position for couple of terms, why do you need to stockpile favors from anybody?

Plus, once term limits are in place, no matter how badly things go, nobody is going to realistically support removing them.

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by howye

Termed out as a state rep? Run next as a state senator! When that is done, try for a state wide job, or one of the many elected court positions or county commissioner.

My current state representative has been in the General Assembly for 17 uninterrupted years. He's switched houses now twice, since term limits expire after only four years. He's already planning to run for his old Senate seat in 2014, 20 years after he was first elected to the House.

[TriPolar]

We've been spoiled. The Constitution set term limits. Two years for a Representative, six years for a Senator, four years for a President. They chose those limits because throughout history the limit for a term was always a lifetime. The Republicans fucked us by limiting the number of terms for a President at two and a half. This automatically makes a President a lame duck in his last term.

If any term limits provided in the Constitution are to be changed, the first change should be limiting the term of a Supreme Court Justice to less than a lifetime, and repealing the 22nd amendment.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

This is exactly it. As I said before, the Constitution had term limits when it was written. Republicans amended the Constitution to take away people's rights to re-elect Democrats to the presidency. Now they want to take away your right to elect Democrats to other positions. If Americans weren't such a lazy ignorant lot, they would realize how lucky they are to have their legislatures and executive under term limits already. And they might wise up and realize that the modern 'pro-limit' effort doesn't address the problem originally in the Constitution, no term limit for judges.

Originally Posted by TriPolar

We've been spoiled. The Constitution set term limits. Two years for a Representative, six years for a Senator, four years for a President. They chose those limits because throughout history the limit for a term was always a lifetime.

I don't understand what the heck you're saying here as it applies to senators and congressmen. The Constitution set their terms between elections, but where are you getting this allegation that the Constitution originally included term limits, as in a ceiling on the number of times that a congressman could run for re-election? Or are you trying to play some cutesy word game with what a "term" really means?

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I don't understand what the heck you're saying here as it applies to senators and congressmen. The Constitution set their terms between elections, but where are you getting this allegation that the Constitution originally included term limits, as in a ceiling on the number of times that a congressman could run for re-election? Or are you trying to play some cutesy word game with what a "term" really means?

No, I'm trying to get people to realize that limiting the term of ruling parties to a specific time period followed by new elections was unique in the formation of this country, and we shouldn't be messing with it. The current concept of limiting the 'number of terms', not the terms themselves is an attempt to undo democracy. Representatives, Senators, and the President have limited terms, and we can toss them out of office at the end of those terms. The term 'term limits' is itself akin to the 'Patriot Act', neither of which means what they say.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

No, I'm trying to get people to realize that limiting the term of ruling parties to a specific time period followed by new elections was unique in the formation of this country, and we shouldn't be messing with it. The current concept of limiting the 'number of terms', not the terms themselves is an attempt to undo democracy. Representatives, Senators, and the President have limited terms, and we can toss them out of office at the end of those terms. The term 'term limits' is itself akin to the 'Patriot Act', neither of which means what they say.

Ok, you're just playing word games. I thought as much.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Ok, you're just playing word games. I thought as much.

Tis not I who was playing the word games. I'm trying to a stop to them.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

No, I'm trying to get people to realize that limiting the term of ruling parties to a specific time period followed by new elections was unique in the formation of this country...

That would come as a surprise to the members of the English House of Commons, whose three year terms ended as a result of the Triennial Acts, passed starting in 1641, and the members of the British House of Commons, whose seven year terms ended as a result of the Septennial Act of 1715.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

That would come as a surprise to the members of the English House of Commons, whose three year terms ended as a result of the Triennial Acts, passed starting in 1641, and the members of the British House of Commons, whose seven year terms ended as a result of the Septennial Act of 1715.

You are probably correct. England was on it's way to democracy. But were colonial Governors subject to term limits? Did democracy succeed anywhere else in the world?

Never-the-less, I'll modify my rhetoric to include that fact.

[2sense]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

We've been spoiled. The Constitution set term limits. Two years for a Representative, six years for a Senator, four years for a President. They chose those limits because throughout history the limit for a term was always a lifetime.

Originally Posted by TriPolar

No, I'm trying to get people to realize that limiting the term of ruling parties to a specific time period followed by new elections was unique in the formation of this country, and we shouldn't be messing with it. The current concept of limiting the 'number of terms', not the terms themselves is an attempt to undo democracy.

If I may inject a quick historical note here, all of the 13 colonies had representative assemblies with annual elections. So they had one year terms. In Rhode Island and Connecticut the upper house of the legislature and the governors were elected as well, also annually. These colonies retained their governmental structures as they became states but the others adopted constitutions (before the federal constitution) and all of these states had set terms for all legislators and governors/presidents.

Term limits were not uncommon at the time. Six states had some term limits while seven did not. At the time the practice (known then as "rotation in office") was considered democratic rather than the reverse in that more people would serve as high officials. The more conservative constitutions did not rely on them.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by 2sense

If I may inject a quick historical note here, all of the 13 colonies had representative assemblies with annual elections. So they had one year terms. In Rhode Island and Connecticut the upper house of the legislature and the governors were elected as well, also annually. These colonies retained their governmental structures as they became states but the others adopted constitutions (before the federal constitution) and all of these states had set terms for all legislators and governors/presidents.

Term limits were not uncommon at the time. Six states had some term limits while seven did not. At the time the practice (known then as "rotation in office") was considered democratic rather than the reverse in that more people would serve as high officials. The more conservative constitutions did not rely on them.

The governors were appointed by the crown if I understand correctly. Here in Rhode Island we dealt with that by legislating all the authority to the legislature, which holds to this day. That's the main reason we are a welfare state.

[Cpat]

I'm for time limits, whereby no one workd for the federal government for more than say 13 years. This would apply to anyone from the janitor at the Washington Monument to politicians. This would not only get rid of self serving politicians but to double and triple dippers.

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by Cpat

I'm for time limits, whereby no one workd for the federal government for more than say 13 years. This would apply to anyone from the janitor at the Washington Monument to politicians. This would not only get rid of self serving politicians but to double and triple dippers.

Oh yeah, let's get rid of the experienced scientists at the National Institutes of Health and replace them with kids right out of college. That seems like a great idea.

Just the first problem with this idea that popped into my head.

[howye]

Originally Posted by suranyi

Oh yeah, let's get rid of the experienced scientists at the National Institutes of Health and replace them with kids right out of college. That seems like a great idea.

Just the first problem with this idea that popped into my head.

No military commander with more than 12 years experience.

[Cpat]

Originally Posted by suranyi

Oh yeah, let's get rid of the experienced scientists at the National Institutes of Health and replace them with kids right out of college. That seems like a great idea.

Just the first problem with this idea that popped into my head.

Who said anything about replacing experienced scientists with inexperience college grads.

Replace them with experienced personnel with 10-15 years experience in the private sector. That's how we got to the moon in 8 years.

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by Cpat

Who said anything about replacing experienced scientists with inexperience college grads.

Replace them with experienced personnel with 10-15 years experience in the private sector. That's how we got to the moon in 8 years.

And you're going to get these people to quit their high-paying private sector jobs for government service exactly how?

How about you quit your current job and do government service for only 12-13 years and then try to go back to the private sector?

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

And you're going to get these people to quit their high-paying private sector jobs for government service exactly how?

How about you quit your current job and do government service for only 12-13 years and then try to go back to the private sector?

Hey, it would be a great job if you were 53. Other than that, not so much.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Cpat

Who said anything about replacing experienced scientists with inexperience college grads.

Replace them with experienced personnel with 10-15 years experience in the private sector. That's how we got to the moon in 8 years.

Do you think NASA scientists were told in 1961 that they would get fired in 1969? I suspect most of them thought the space program would continue far beyond. Not to mention that most people working on the moon program were working for private companies. Lots of them got fired when the project concluded, but that was always the way of the defense industry.

[kaylasdad99]

Welcome to the SDMB, Cpat!

[Chronos]

Besides which, some government jobs don't really have private-sector equivalents. The vast majority of researchers in this country get paid primarily by some branch or another of the federal government.