Yes, 10% of them. Do you think 90% of congressfolks do a good job? Do you think the electorate thinks so? Incumbency is a huge advantage in Congress. The sitting candidate basically gets to use the power of the office as a vote-buying tool.
Term limits are (at least constitutionally) not the answer, but something needs to be done.
That’s irrelevant. I’m not represented by 90% of them. You don’t like who’s going to Congress? First of all, maybe the people sending the folks you don’t like back there don’t think like you.
Second of all, it has a bit to do with the way districts are cut.
I live in a Republican neighborhood. State Assembly Rep is always Republican, State Senator is always Republican minus one term a few years back. But unfortunately my Congress Rep is Democrat Gwen Moore. If I lived 2 blocks to the south, or 2 blocks to the west it would be Jim Sensenbrenner who was my Rep when I lived elsewhere and is quite a good guy. The people that keep electing Moore don’t live anywhere near this area but are still in the same district.
But I’m not going to move because of it. I’m going to continue to try to change peoples hearts and minds at election time. Not be a big freaking baby and try to change the entire system because I’m not getting what I want.
Heh. I remember the first time Moore came around campaigning for reelection. *“Hi, I’m Gwen Moore. I represent you in the United States Congress House of Representatives”. *
“THE HELL YOU DO!” SLAM!!!
Well to be fair, that says that States cannot impose term limits overriding the limits set forth in the Constitution. But an amendment to the US constitution changing the term limits for Representatives and Senators could be passed in the same manner that an amendment on the term limits of the POTUS was made.
Actually the majority of the policy research, bill drafting, legislative negotiation on Capitol Hill is done by staffers that are normally between 25 and 30 years of age. The elected officials rely heavily on these people to tell them what to say, etc.
Establishing the framework for the US government is not rocket surgery or even brain science. It is mostly common sense. Congressional committee seats are determined by tenure and is where the real power is wielded in Congress, which is why many people with long tenured members of Congress don’t want them displaced because those dollars that find their way back to their home states will likely dry up.
From the OP:
How long do you think it takes to get a corporate interest behind you? About as long as it takes to go to lunch. I suppose it might take a couple of weeks, if you’ve got a long line of lobbyists wanting to take you out to lunch, but that process can start before you’re even elected: Plenty of time to get through all of them before you’re even sworn in. And of course, if you’re going to be job-hunting again in another few years, those corporate interests have a really easy bribe to offer you. No, what takes time is breaking free of those corporate interests.
The newer you are, the more dependent you are on your corporate donors.
I think this is wrong. Corporate interests get involved because they supply money, which supplies votes. It doesn’t matter if there is an incumbent or not, both candidates will be soliciting corporate interests.
Or it’s not enough Republicans (or Democrats) that are getting bounced.
This objection only makes sense if you think most candidates would do a better job than the incumbent, which is an unsupported (and wrong, IMO) conjecture. And then when you finally do find a competent pol she gets pushed out too soon because of misguided term limits and you’re back to trying to find a good one.
Term limits are one of those solutions that fits H.L Mencken’s quote: …there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.
You don’t need corporate donors if you aren’t running for re-election.
Don’t blame Congress for being full of the people we elected to Congress.
If you know you’re going to lose your job, you need friends in high places who will help you get another job.
Little Nemo beat me to it on this, but here’s what I posted after him:
You do if you want a high-paid job after you leave office, as most do:
You need them to get elected in the first place and you need them to get you a job when you become term-limited. The more time you have to create your own sphere of influence and expertise, the more independent you are.
Term limits create more problems of good governance in exchange for zero benefit.
More or less true. Look i know there’s a lot of scummy politicos, but the best bet is to vote IN the Good ones and Out the Bad ones. Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater.
No, you go back to the job you left after you serve your term. You’re still thinking in the current paradigm. Only people that are out of the work force for 12 plus years need help getting a lobbying job when they don’t get re-elected. If the turnover in congress was higher, there wouldn’t be as many lobbying jobs available.
No.
Term limits give us politicians who operate on a manic “deadline for relevancy” timetable–like Ted Cruz–but somehow they have done this without sticking a knife in the heart of boneheaded conservatism. Term limits strengthen the party caucus, who vote for committee chairs based on dogmatic loyalty, not a seniority that doesn’t exist–and thus punish politicians who think for themselves and cross party lines.
We’ve tried term limits, and they are bad.
If term limits meant that Congress was suddenly full of fresh young minds ready to stop global warming, and in a hurry to do it before being kicked out, that would be awesome. But the opposite has happened. Why?
I think it’s that the parade of new faces, unless they are anointed dynastic heirs (and sometimes even then) are actually a bunch of competitors for votes. And they compete by being familiar in ideology when not familiar in their own faces. There are two great ways for a new guy to win over supporters and be elected: Be a celebrity (like Schwarzenegger) or be as predictable and reliable as a bar of soap (like most pols).
AGW is “new” to many people. It’s not Granddad’s issue, nor even Dad’s. So it doesn’t sell as conservative to oppose AGW, nor even to acknowledge it exists.
Where we see term limits, we see “conservatives” dogmatic to the point of unreason. Including weird anti-science crackpots taking over the politics of states that have instituted term limits. But they’re still “conservatives,” somehow.
Since 1980, party control of the Senate has changed six times. During the same period, party control of the White House only changed four times.
Seems to me that’s evidence that voters do, in fact, shake things up.
You think former politicians take lobbying jobs because they need help? No, they take them because it’s a lot of money for doing almost nothing, and that’s almost always going to be better than whatever they were doing before.
I don’t worry much about term limits in the US Senate or House. They’re never going to happen. Why? Because I just can’t imagine Congresspeople and Senators agreeing to pass legislation to put them out of a job.
It’s reasonable to assume that more than 10% of opposing candidates would do a better job than the incumbent.