# Let's talk term limits **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2017, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396 "2017-01-05T16:45:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/21 "2017-01-05T21:14:25Z")
> [@Navy\_draftee](#): > > term limits work quite well for the elected position of the President. I dunno, I’d rather have Term 3 of Obama than Trump. A third term for Bill? Sure. Then no GWB. A Third Term for Ronnie would have been a mistake, no doubt, even for his fans, but I doubt if he could have done it. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/22 "2017-01-05T21:15:45Z")
The Cruz proposed Constitutional amendment would limit anybody to 3 terms in the House and 2 terms in the Senate (this is total, not just consecutively), with somebody filling a vacancy for half of a term or more having that count as a full term. Note that any terms that started before the amendment is ratified would not be counted towards any limit; also, no terms served in either house of Congress would be counted against serving in the other house. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/23 "2017-01-05T21:17:30Z")
Term limits would have deprived California of the most effective senator we’ve ever had. One who holds the record for the most popular votes in any Senate election in history (7.75 million). Screw that! ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/24 "2017-01-05T21:23:30Z")
Data are useful when discussing the value of things. Not seeing any cited here, yet. There have been a few studies of the effects of term limits on states that instituted them early. Some of that data is summarized in [this article from WaPo.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/03/21/are-term-limits-for-state-lawmakers-a-good-idea/?utm_term=.0b1ec0c130da) The basic conclusions are that: a) it doesn’t affect spending, but b) it does enhance the influence of lobbyists. I’m not sure that these results are desirable. One can argue that having lobbyists more in control of what legislation is proposed, and (perhaps more importantly) how it is written is Not A Good Thing. Compounding that tendency with the fact that the legislators themselves are inexperienced, but are the ones voting on the results, probably is asking for trouble. Can anyone who has watched California politics in the last 20 years truly say that they think the state’s Legislature runs better than it did in the past? That’s a tough argument to make, I think. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2017, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/25 "2017-01-05T21:32:12Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I agree with **steronz** and the OP. This would be a bad constitutional amendment. It would be the first since Prohibition to take a right away from the people. Term limits reduce our range of choices; it’s a law saying, “You may not vote for this (potential) candidate.” The first since 1947, by that analysis, when the 22nd Amendment took away your right to elect a President to more than two terms. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/26 "2017-01-06T11:15:29Z")
If you want to deal with the Jeffersonian principle of avoiding stagnation at the top, do something about gerrymandering. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/27 "2017-01-06T11:36:09Z")
> [@Navy\_draftee](#): > > term limits work quite well for the elected position of the President. Mostly because the term limit for the president doesn’t actually do all that much. Most presidents wouldn’t make it to a third term if they tried. Even in countries without term limits, democratic heads of government generally seem to last about a decade before fizzling. A few last longer, but most don’t. And that’s our experience in the USA too. In the century and a half or so where the USA didn’t have term limits for the president, only one president actually managed to make it longer than eight years. Several other presidents tried, but it’s actually kind of hard to keep such a high-profile office for that long. You get tired of the stress (even our young presidents are not exactly young men), the voters get tired of you, your party rivals get tired of waiting for their bite at the apple, etc. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/28 "2017-01-06T11:47:22Z")
> [@Navy\_draftee](#): > > term limits work quite well for the elected position of the President. In what way does it work well? ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/29 "2017-01-06T12:56:53Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Mostly because the term limit for the president doesn’t actually do all that much. Most presidents wouldn’t make it to a third term if they tried. Even in countries without term limits, democratic heads of government generally seem to last about a decade before fizzling. A few last longer, but most don’t. And that’s our experience in the USA too. In the century and a half or so where the USA didn’t have term limits for the president, only one president actually managed to make it longer than eight years. Several other presidents tried, but it’s actually kind of hard to keep such a high-profile office for that long. You get tired of the stress (even our young presidents are not exactly young men), the voters get tired of you, your party rivals get tired of waiting for their bite at the apple, etc. “Several other presidents tried, …” Name them. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/30 "2017-01-06T13:08:16Z")
Grant comes to mind. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/31 "2017-01-06T13:29:16Z")
Theodore Roosevelt served three and a half years of McKinley’s term, then was elected. Four years later he tried again. If elected in 1912, he would have served almost three full terms. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/32 "2017-01-06T13:38:01Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > “Several other presidents tried, …” Name them. Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (his first term was almost a full term, and would have counted as such under the 22nd Amendment). Ulysses S. Grant came pretty close to winning the Republican nomination in 1880. Harry Truman started laying the groundwork to use his exemption from the 22nd Amendment in 1952 but withdrew fairly early. Even Woodrow Wilson tried to maneuver himself into the Democratic nomination in 1920 (this was mostly just sad; the poor guy even thought, later on, that he might be able to run in 1924). One of the myths about presidential term limits is that there was a vaunted, saintly, _noble_ tradition of presidents retiring after two terms and never ever even considering serving longer than George Washington, until the mad socialist FDR pissed on our national heritage and stole himself a third term. It’s not very true, but you hear variations of it a lot. ---
**Author:** ![HumbleThinker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@HumbleThinker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumbleThinker)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/33 "2017-01-06T15:08:22Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Read my post (#2). What has happened in Michigan with term limits is a capital full of inexperienced lawmakers who know they don’t need to govern with accountability or nuance. So that leaves you with two possibilities: Absolute gridlock (in a divided government) or slash-and-burn governing (in a single-party rule, which is what we have now). > > Most of these people are dependent upon the lobbyists to write their legislation; they see no value in forging alliances or horse trading; and every single one of them is looking ahead to how much they can make once they’re out of office in 2, 4 or 6 years, so they follow the will of the person willing to pay them the most for their pet projects. They end up doing the will of the wealthiest lobbyist(s) because they need to squeeze as much dirty, dirty action into a finite space as possible. All of these things lead to extremists in government. > > But they absolute worst part is that they can pass ridiculous bullshit and know that they will never have to answer to voters if it all goes to hell. They’ll be long gone when the results of defunding schools hits. They’ll be long gone when the road-repair bill they didn’t fully fund comes due. Even if their party suffers the electoral consequences down the line, what the hell do the individual legislators care? They got theirs (at the expense of the state). > > The reality of term limits is that it makes government more dysfunctional, and term limits actually make the elected officials \*less \*accountable to the people. These are certainly terrible outcomes, I agree. I’m not sure, though, that they are tied to term limits. Corrupt people are going to be corrupt with or without term limits. Their corrupt acts may take different form, but they will still act corruptly. Inept people will act ineptly with or without term limits. The undertones I’m (perhaps erroneously) detecting in your post is an implicit acceptance that, beyond lawsuits, accountability is tied almost solely to not getting reelected. The people that this applies to shouldn’t be getting elected. But I think we voters have just accepted that politicians are not going to care about them and so will have no feeling of internal accountability. These sorts of people shouldn’t be getting elected. That they are is what I see as the real problem, not necessarily term limits or lack thereof. It seems as if we are just trying to keep monsters or potential monsters in line, while trying to get as much benefit and the least detriment out of their actions as possible. I take one of the traditional positions that while government service is commendable, it’s also one of if not the most corrupting influences in society. The corruption increases as one goes to a higher and higher position in government. And given that, it would be prudent to not let a person remain in any one position for too long save for perhaps lower positions that are of little importance if they are going to have a continued life in public service. I think a big issue that makes term limits seem like a bad idea and leads to a lot of the problems you brought up is the sheer amount of power the government has over our lives. With all that influence, changes in that influence can be quite exhausting. Perhaps our society has gotten so complex that we need this amount of government influence, but I would be interested if we could get by with less government influence as I think it would address many of the issues you brought up. ---
**Author:** ![HumbleThinker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@HumbleThinker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumbleThinker)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/34 "2017-01-06T15:20:57Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > We also had a bunch of soldiers who picked up arms, joined the Continental Army for a bit, and then left the service. That doesn’t mean that soldiers today don’t need to have more training and expertise than in Revolutionary times. > > But let’s also get real here. The Founders as a whole weren’t just political dilettantes who did a couple years worth of service to their country and then returned to private life. Quite a few had records like Washington, who served for 15 years in the Virginia House of Burgesses. Others rotated through a variety of positions, from members of Congress to ministers to cabinet officials, etc., but would today surely be considered professional politicians. > > Of course there is a nuance between term limits for a particular office and one’s perception of being a professional politician. But the idea that the Founders established an American tradition of non-professional politicians is incorrect. An awful lot of them were in public life for the better part of their careers. This is why I’m a little weary of the “professional politician” trope as it paints what I see as the issue a bit one-dimensionally. Length of time is not the whole issue, though it is certainly part of it. As I said to another post, I think government service, while important, is one of if not the most corrupting influence in society. It’s a huge part of what our nation was founded on. So if we are going to have people who serve for a long time in government, I think it prudent to move them around often, particularly as we get to the highest levels of government. This can of course become corrupted, and has at least since the time of Jackson, but that is a separate issue. Another aspect is the quality of people we voters are putting into office. Political ambition has traditionally been seen as a trait of an easily corruptible politician that voters should avoid voting for. Such people will act in accordance with this ambition first and foremost instead of perhaps secondarily, tertiary or not at all. I see this and other issues as much more important than simply keeping out people who have served in the government for a long time for the reason you stated. One thing I notice about the traditional usages of term limits is that it was not a life-long limit. For instance, an office might have a limit of “no more than 3 years in six” or something like that. So someone could serve a three year term, serve in another office or retire from political life for three years, then serve in that same office another three years later. Save for perhaps president, I find this method a bit better than life long term limits. ---
**Author:** ![HumbleThinker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@HumbleThinker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumbleThinker)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/35 "2017-01-06T15:25:31Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > If you want to deal with the Jeffersonian principle of avoiding stagnation at the top, do something about gerrymandering. I think both have to be done rather than one or the other. But even more than that is that we need to get stronger voter turnout. Voter turnout topping out at 60%, and then only in presidential elections, makes it that much easier for stagnation to occur. It’s hard to make real conclusions about the makeup of an area or the effects of gerrymandering when you have 40% or less voter turnout in the local and state elections that matter much more than national elections. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/36 "2017-01-06T15:42:32Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > If you want to deal with the Jeffersonian principle of avoiding stagnation at the top, do something about gerrymandering. ^This. I might be convinced to accept a compromise on term limits IF we had a better voting map, and IF we the voters had a simple way to make exceptions to the term limits for very popular elected officials. That is, if 50% + x% of voters vote for the incumbent, they get the position, term limits be damned. I’m not sure what x should be. ---
**Author:** ![snoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@snoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snoe)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/37 "2017-01-06T15:51:55Z")
It’s disappointing that if we’re going to summon the political will to amend the Constitution to fix our political culture we’re not going to do something more ambitious than, sigh, term limits. Cmon, Ted! Here are some ideas: 1. A German-style system that mixes local representation with national representation for geographically dispersed interest groups 2. Rejigger the Senate; keep the equal state representation, but add a decent number of nationally elected senators as well (again, representing geographically dispersed groups) 3. Multi-member districts: either expand the House (ideal) or expand districts and have each elect several reps using a non-first past the post method. I’m convinced, but cannot prove, that if we want fresh blood and fresh ideas in Washington, making elections more representative (and less safe for incumbents) is a much better way to go than term limits. Voter participation would improve as our votes had a chance of mattering - for most voters in most places, they don’t, and can’t, because of structural issues having nothing to do with the poor character of our elected officials. TLDR: term limits address a symptom, not the cause. (My ideas are greatly influenced by / ripped off from Hendrik Hertzberg’s essay “Let’s Get Representative”) ---
**Author:** ![HumbleThinker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@HumbleThinker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumbleThinker)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/38 "2017-01-06T16:17:14Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > ^This. > > I might be convinced to accept a compromise on term limits IF we had a better voting map, and IF we the voters had a simple way to make exceptions to the term limits for very popular elected officials. That is, if 50% + x% of voters vote for the incumbent, they get the position, term limits be damned. > > I’m not sure what x should be. My “never gonna happen for obvious reasons” dream scenario would be invalidating election results that do not have a specified voter turnout rate. But this has so many obvious pitfalls that I cannot imagine it ever being prudent. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/39 "2017-01-06T17:54:32Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Grant comes to mind. > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Theodore Roosevelt served three and a half years of McKinley’s term, then was elected. Four years later he tried again. If elected in 1912, he would have served almost three full terms. > [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (his first term was almost a full term, and would have counted as such under the 22nd Amendment). Ulysses S. Grant came pretty close to winning the Republican nomination in 1880. Harry Truman started laying the groundwork to use his exemption from the 22nd Amendment in 1952 but withdrew fairly early. Even Woodrow Wilson tried to maneuver himself into the Democratic nomination in 1920 (this was mostly just sad; the poor guy even thought, later on, that he might be able to run in 1924). > > One of the myths about presidential term limits is that there was a vaunted, saintly, _noble_ tradition of presidents retiring after two terms and never ever even considering serving longer than George Washington, until the mad socialist FDR pissed on our national heritage and stole himself a third term. It’s not very true, but you hear variations of it a lot. There were, by your counts, two presidents who actually tried, but not for a consecutive third term (Roosevelt and Grant), one president who might have tried, but didn’t (Truman, who himself didn’t actually try, but let his name be entered into the New Hampshire primary), and one president who I’ve never heard ever attempted to run (Wilson; what’s your evidence for your statement?). That is hardly “several.” Two actual attempts out of 34 who had the opportunity, and neither for a third successive term. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2017, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396/40 "2017-01-06T18:00:23Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > There were, by your counts, two presidents who actually tried, but not for a consecutive third term (Roosevelt and Grant), one president who might have tried, but didn’t (Truman, who himself didn’t actually try, but let his name be entered into the New Hampshire primary), and one president who I’ve never heard ever attempted to run (Wilson; what’s your evidence for your statement?). > > That is hardly “several.” Two actual attempts out of 34 who had the opportunity, and neither for a third successive term. And another term of Teddy would have been fantastic, way better than Woodrow Wilson. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-talk-term-limits/776396.md?page=3)