How does limiting a congresscritter to any specific number of years actually impede all the things that you find wrong with the process? Do you actually believe that a person who is limited to 12 years is in some way prevented from using power to bestow favors or withhold favors while he or she is there?
As noted, above, the “amateurs” are going to find themselves having to hire staffs from among the ranks of professional staffers who will then manipulate the same process without even the control imposed by the Tuesday following the First Monday in November.
I fail to see how replacing an individual career politician with a family of short-term politicians does anything significant to “diffuse the awesome power inherent in positions of government”.
Moreover, ISTM that corruption and influence-peddling would be more rampant in a term-limited legislature than in a non-limited one. The goal of serving as a long-term career politician is an incentive for elected officials to avoid egregious misbehavior that would get them thrown out or thrown in jail. Politicians who know they can be in office for a few years tops, on the other hand, would probably be more likely to make the most of their nest-feathering opportunities while they briefly have the chance.
I’ll buck the trend in this thread, and support term limits. My theory is that a term limited congressman is free to act in the best interest of the country, regardless of political expiediency. Cynic that I am, I believe the present situation has most elected officials acting with an eye to get re-elected, and screw the national interest.
To me, that sounds more naive than cynical: it’s so divorced from the real-life demands of politics. It’s so expensive nowadays to run any kind of campaign for national office, and there’s so much to do and to learn once you’re elected if you want to be halfway competent at it—why on earth would anybody go through that if they knew they were only going to be able to hold the job for, say, six to ten years max?
ISTM that somebody willing to make that kind of investment for such a restricted career opportunity is most likely to be either a crook or a shill. I.e., either they’re on the make and hoping to milk as many rewards as possible during the few years they hold office, or they’re a hanger-on or front-man for a powerful lobby that wants a tame legislator. The genuinely public-spirited people who would willingly make such a poor bargain for the sheer desire “to act in the best interest of the country” would be pretty few and far between, I’m guessing.
On the other hand, if we had publicly funded election campaigns, term limits might make more sense. If campaign costs weren’t such a huge financial barrier for individuals, we would probably get a lot more candidates motivated primarily by a sincere desire to serve the public, and it might be worth increasing the turnover to give more of them a chance.
On the other hand again, if we do get a genuinely public-spirited officeholder from time to time, it would be a shame not to be able to keep them around. We already have a system where we can dump the politicians we don’t like; why set it up so that we also have to dump the ones we do like?
I favor a modified term-limits proposal: Your first election you need to win more votes than your opponent. Second election, you need to win, say, 55% of the votes. Third election, 60%. This ensures that a truly popular candidate can extend his stay in office a little bit, but eventually he needs to go, and after a certain point his unseating will become inevitable.
The reason I favor term limits is that I believe that professional politicians become focused on perpetuating their own tenure in office, a skill I don’t think is required for governing. I’d rather the people I elect focus on voting on things they place a high priority on, from the git-go, with the knowledge that they’re not going to around for very long anyway. Term limits encourage them to do the right thing, and that’s pretty rare in politicians.
This is why I am 100% against term limits. I worked for a state legislature for years and was there when term limits were introduced. It resulted in a house of representatives where no one had more then 4 years experience. This is the body that has to create the state’s budget every year and there was no one in office who could even read the budget much less write one. All of the power went to the legislative bureaucrats.
The result? The state budget is now written, reviewed, and approved by unelected staff. The reps don’t even read it they just follow the orders of the staff and vote yay. Formerly the position of Chair of Ways and Means was held by someone who had been doing the job for 20 years and knew exactly what was going on.
What is the use of a legislature if the only people around who know what’s going on are not elected?
No, but he or she is prevented from converting those favors into a lifetime sinecure in Congress.
It ensures that the power will be exercised by a different individual after a given number of years. Since open seats tend to attract livelier political competition, it ensures more frequent contested elections.
With respect to familial dynasties, Illinois has no term limits of any kind, and it is absolutely littered with political heirs, starting with Mayor-for-Life Richard J. Daley, and including Stroger Jr., Jackson Jr., Madigan, Hynes, and on and on ad nauseam.
Term limits can do what the voters don’t,change occasionally . We return 95-98 % of our electees. Most of this is due to the huge advantages the system has built in to protect incumbants. The campaign financing reform was given lip service. Until it is dealt with we have a self sustaining and self corrupting system. I do not know how to change it from the outside,but it won’t get done by the insiders.
It ensures no such thing. Rather, per Pábitel’s real-world-experience confirmation of my hypothesis, it ensures that power is exercised by people whose tenure is unconnected to the electoral process and, indeed, whose names you will never even know.
Good, I agree, so I’ll trade a removal of terms limits in exchange for the removal of all lobbyists. If you have a issue, write a letter. No more schmoozing.
Didn’t mean to abandon the topic, real life beckoned…
I appreciate every one’s contribution.
As for those that think term limits create a whole new range of issues and problems, I see your point. However, I’m not willing to throw in the towel and forget term limits all together. While I agree that long term lame duck Senators and even two year Representatives do pose a problem, I’m not convinced it’s any bigger then the problem we have with life term politicians now. The root of the problem is Washington - the life style, the lobbyist, the media attention, the spot lights and our society’s desire to make these people seem bigger than life, and on and on. You can’t take an average Joe and insert him into that madness without ending up with someone entirely different (and sometimes not for the better).
Now I also agree, the easy solution is for their constituents to vote them out of office. The way the election system is designed, the chances of that happening are slim. So what is the solution?
What if the members of Congress spent the vast majority of their time at home in their own districts and relied on electronic communications, net meetings and the like, similar to the process that is increasingly being used by the business world. With today’s communication capabilities, why is it necessary for them to relocate to Washington? Just come into town for short general sessions, then back home.
I could support a limit on consecutive terms. Let’s say no one can serve more than 12 years in a row in the same seat (6 terms for a rep or 2 for a senator). But if a congressman serves 12 years then takes off one 2 year term and then manages to get re-elected he could then serve another 12 years.
Barring a system like that, I think the solution is far worse than the problem.