Wouldn't term limits just empower bureaucrats and lifetime staffers, plus increase the number of puppet candidates?

Are term limits better in theory than practice?  

I'd rather have puppet candidates than look at Pelosis, Bidens and McCains for decades. Are you related to a life long politician?

There aren’t any

What term limits?

The concept behind it is that the longer an elected official is in power, the more exposure they have of being bribed and motivated by powers outside the US, ergo they become more globalistic. Think of people like Joe Biden who have spent decades in politics and have more ties to China than the US.

That said, it is and always has been theoretical because it requires a congressional vote to pass and congress will never vote to strip itself of power.

The powerful incumbent advantage makes career politicians almost impossible to remove. The real benefit is this means a shitbag can't root themselves and fuck us over for decades.

No, not related to any politicians I know.  I'm just considering what unintended consequences there might be.

I know that government was never supposed to be a career, merely a service to one's nation.

I'd much rather repeal the Seventeenth than install term limits.

Appointed to a no show board position with generous pay, contributions to their reelection, speaking fees, etc.

They are slaves to their corporate masters and special interests.

Term limits!

Yes, term limits do those things.  They also throw out the baby with the bathwater, i.e. you lose the ones that actually are good with all of the bad, and bad tends to replace the good more often than the other way around.  Legislators also are more likely to do corrupt things to find their next office or job since they know they'll be gone by a certain point.  They also become lame ducks or just do whatever they want for the entirety of their last term, since they know they will not be held to account.  And the reason why those bureaucrats and staffers gain power is because legislators have to go once they are starting to get real experience or even before then, which makes the legislature perpetually full of novices, necessitating that the experienced staffers do the real work, and that more and more power is transferred to the professionals of the executive branch.  Term limits also do not prevent lifetime officeholders and politicians.  They do not improve the quality of legislatures.  They basically accomplish almost nothing that they promise to do, while tending to cause varying degrees of harm.

Term limits are stupid, and support for them is even dumber considering they have already been tried many times across the U.S.  California's legislature has term limits.  Has it made the legislature better?  I think we all know the answer to that one.  Our legislature sucks a lot, and term limits will not change that.  

If they've been tried in many States and done nothing positive and significant, what makes any thinking person believe that applying them to Congress will somehow magically make that institution better?  It's quite foolish.  Term limits, IMO, are a political panacea to the simple-minded; like many clear but false ideas, they sound great to the average person, which is why they have the appeal that they do, despite being bad both in theory and in practice, and which is probably why it's one of the only amendments to the Constitution that might be feasible to get ratified if passed, whether by a constitutional convention or Congress (although we all know the latter won't pass such a thing).

Short answer: Term limits are bad both in theory and in practice.  Just say no.

The only advantage an incumbent has is the one the voters give them.

That would be a worthy reform, with some tweaks to deal with the issues that led to that amendment in the first place.

We have term limits every 2 years for the House and every 6 years in the Senate.  The problem is 10-15% voter turn out and lack of an engaged electorate.

We The People are the problem not the politicians.....WE have allowed this to happen.....

Seems to me like the quality of the participating electorate decreases with increased voter turnout.  A larger percentage of people actually voting seem to understand the issues and candidates when turnout is really low.

Personally, I'm a fan of a qualified electorate instead of a universal one, but that ship has sailed.

Term limits are a start, but there is some value to experience in congress. You don’t want 435 freshman representatives at the same time. IMO, getting national PAC money out of state elections is the real answer, and you do this by repealing the 17th Amendment, at least for the senate.

I want senators and representatives beholden to their constituents, not beholden to those who paid for their election or who are going to fund your next campaign as long as you vote certain ways.

Term limits are a bandaid. Taking the elections away from the people and giving them back to the state governments is the cure.

That's the way it works in my state's legislature.

So, turn the selection of members of Congress over to state legislatures that are full of term-limited new-comers who are just trying to make a name for themselves so they can run for Congress some day? Seems like a great plan . . .

Term limits are the panacea that people cry for when they have non-term-limited govt in place. Once they get term limits for a generation or so, they get frustrated because their elected government can't seem to actually DO anything - including undoing the damage done by the previous legislature.

We have term limits in Michigan. Every once in a while we get a great conservative candidate like Michelle Hoitenga, but by the time she knows what she's doing and can actually start to affect some positive change, her term is up and we get somebody new, who may or may not be as good as what we have now. Any projects or causes Michelle has will be scrapped, because everyone wants their own legacy - they don't want to use their predecessor's.  And we also get politicians like Pete Meijer, who is more loyal to the party (and worried about his huge chain of department stores) than his constituanets, which is why he publically blamed Trump for January 6th and voted for the impeachment. I can assure you he is NOT speaking for his constituents there.

If Ted Cruz was term limited this time around, who would Texas put up that could beat Beto? Beto *almost* won last time. Put him up against an unknown new guy at your own peril.

In theory a 4 year election cycle should accomplish the same thing. That doesnt work the way it was intended either, though, when people like George Soros can influence local elections all over the country.

Overall I'll take term limits, but they come with their own set of dangers.

Corrupt election officials and insider fraud counts are not going to solve a "We the people" vote

Might as well start a lame thread about what you would do with your lottery winnings.

Term limits are a fantasy, they will never happen good or bad.

Term limits happen on the state level because of citizen-led initiative petitions. The PEOPLE impose term limits on lawmakers. There is not initiative petition mechanism on the federal level so Congress would have to impose term limits on themselves. Not likely to happen.

It actually works better than having both houses work on a popularity contest. Senators were never intended to be directly elected. It puts a breaker in the circuit so a mass of poors can't vote themselves the treasury quite as quickly.

Your perspective is pretty myopic and is isolated to a corrupt blue state...of course, CA will just find the next socialist to run when the other's terms are up.  That doesn't apply at a national level (at least right now).  I do agree, the fear is that the staffer-underclass with be the experienced bureaucrats running things...but they're doing that right now in WA.  

What term-limits do is limit the empires that career politicians create.  We have all accepted politics a career...it shouldn't be.  Fuck that nonsense about "experience".  All the Trump haters can hate him for various reason, but even with zero experience in politics, he made far more "progress" economically than any of the past four presidents combined.  We don't need "experienced politicians, wise in the ways of procedures and bureaucracy", we need short term leaders who are already engaged in society to make policy decisions.  I'm so fucking tired of people thinking you have to be a fucking 20+year political cuck to understand the Constitution, make policy, economic, and energy decisions.  Fuck that stupid ass mentality...it's the simple minded who think politicians should be career elitists.  

Washington is no different than Hollywood.  The longer you stay the more decadent, removed, out of touch, corrupt, and clueless you become believing your own hype and tweets.  Term limits won't fix all the corruption, but it does make it harder for those determined to fuck over America for their own pockets and power.  You're simply wrong and CA is the perfect example of giving power to an elite few to bankrupt the state for handouts, encourage illegal voting, and cycle through ignorant, socialists for their term limits.  CA's failure will become America's failure if we don't shake up Congress and term limits is one way to do that before it's too late like it was in CA.

ROCK6

Term limits qould be the first step in taking back part of this country...you know why? Because the politicians dont want term limits

I think you're missing the flaw in the plan. I sure wouldn't want the people in my state legislature picking my U.S. Senator.

Yes.

It would be exponentially better than the system of popular elections we have now.

Hell, I’d be in favor of getting rid of primaries too.

I'm actually curious about this.  It used to be that way.  I think it provides the Senate a better representation of the states.  Looking at our shit-show in GA, the State Assembly is pretty dominantly Republican.  If they were voting on the Senate Representatives, we would have the two socialists now in office.

Just looking at the State House majorities, the Republicans hold 31 to 17 for Democrats (a couple split houses), and Republicans hold 23 "Trifectas" to Democrat's 15. So with the Trifecta alone, it would be 46 Senators to 13 for the the Democrats; the majority of other states maintain pretty solid majorities and would likely yield another 10-12 Republican senators. If we still had the original system, we would have a pretty different political landscape. I actually like going back to this idea for the simple reason that the House is gerrymandered, big cities generate more representatives who are blue and corruption is often the centerpiece.  With more states having a better representation of conservatives, it would give the Senate a better balance and actually provide more oversight of House shenanigans.

ROCK6

I'm more in favor of age limits/mandatory retirement like flag officers.

You realize the people who would make the decision were put in office by popular elections, right? So, you want the term-limited (i.e. beginner) minor league politicians who the people just recently put in office picking the major league politicians instead of having the people pick the major league politicians? OK. Got it. Let's let the people vote on the idea . . . you know, the same people who elect the people who you want to select the other people . . .

The whole idea is based on the premise that we have wise statesmen in the state legislatures who are better prepared than the people to select U.S. Senators. I'm sorry, I'm not convinced that is the case.

Swamp creatures will never vote to limit themselves.

Nuff said.

pipe dream

NOUN

an unattainable or fanciful hope or scheme.

Term limits take away the incentives for career politicians. It is simple as that.

There is already method by which terms can be limited.  

Section 2. [HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES] The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Section 3. [SENATE] The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.    

Section 3 was amended by the 17th Amendment in that: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

Worth the reading time: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-controversy-over-the-direct-election-of-senators

You're missing the point of having the legislature choosing the Senator.  

The Founders knew damn well the idiocy that goes on in State Legislatures.  They didn't think "well these people will have their shit together, let's let them choose" it was a mechanism to check populism and give the States a voice in Federal laws.  The States as Sovereign entities in and of themselves have no direct representation in Congress because of that Amendment which is yet another blow against their powers versus a Central Powerful Government.  

We as a nation have been on a steady march towards the two things the Founders feared most, Populism and Federal Government because they are gateways to Tyranny.  They put in a shitload of checks and balances to slow things down, to be intentionally inefficient, and we have been slowly dismantling them for over a hundred years.  So yes, the State Legislators shouldn't be picking the color of their seat in the office let alone the State Senator, but that system was designed to be shitty intentionally because the alternative, The Senate becoming a more exclusive House of Representatives will have and is currently showing far reaching consequences.

It would make the unelected swamp creatures more powerful.

It would also incentivize them to sell the country out faster while they’re in office.

Put age limits in place instead. Restrict voting and office holding to people between 30 and 65.

America is too big to be ruled from Washington, our constitution was written for an agricultural society of a few million, not hundreds of millions living in urban shit holes.

It’s time to peacefully Balkanize and realign based on shared values within geographic regions and form 4 or 5 new countries out of the US.

Exactly.

"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?"  Mather Byles, 1706-1788

Yes, term limits are needed for the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Unfortunately, at this point, the damage has already been done and our future isn't too bright.

Both Republicans and Democrats have screwed the pooch with regards to the runaway spending. If and when a monetary reset shakes out any 30+year serving politician should have their head on a pike.

You are correct. The presumption is that state level politicians are more qualified to select national representation than the general population. And while I despise almost all politicians and unwaveringly question anybody’s motives who choose a political career, I do feel that the general American population is too stupid, gullible, and selfish to be empowered with universal suffrage.  Understand also, federal representation would be subject to recall from the state legislature on an entirely subjective basis, which I believe would keep them in check.

As you can see, the vast majority of citizens want term limits, but politicians refuse to enact them because like most folks, they don't want to vote themselves out of a job.  It will be up to the citizens to force term limits upon politicians, and the citizens need to be prepared for politicians to try every trick in the book to defeat term limits.  

States that have initiative petitions would be a great place to start.  Citizens could enact a state law requiring term limits and disallow any candidates being put on the ballot if their term limits have been used up.

Feel free to run, but you will run as a write in candidate...that way they can't holler and bitch about not being allowed to run.   Sure, they can run, but state law won't allow anyone who exceeded term limits to be placed on the ballot.

The only people who support term limits are people who haven't thought this through. Term limits are a bad idea. The ONLY advantage is you don't see the same faces indefinitely. But they also create a new, bigger problem.

Term limits do not address:

- Lesser of two evils (us vs them)
- Campaign finance
- Lobbying
- Kickbacks
- Accountability
- A desire to represent all of one's constituency instead of just enough people to get elected

Term limits also penalize good representatives and create a perpetual lame duck term. With term limits you'd just cycle through garbage politicians faster, and those who live in areas leaning heavily in one direction would continue to have no political say.

I've written about this extensively before on this board. What we need is a progressive vote concept where existing candidates get an up/down vote to remain in office, and each term requires a higher "yes" vote. So for the first re-election, they'd need 50% yes, then 60% yes, etc. You'd ultimately require a 90% yes vote and then 100%, theoretically capping the number of terms at 6, but only for really good representatives..

This.

We have a great form of government,BUT,you need as people that believe in the Constitution and what it stands for,and hold politicians feet to the fire over it. We don't have that.

So we will continue down the path of bigger and bigger government...

Yup, unless all high .gov positions get limits, it sounds better than it would be in practice.

Attached File

If you have ever gone to Boys State you will know that term limits won't do shit but make things worse.

One other thing to keep in mind, senators and congressman don't represent you unless you live in their state/district.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't have a duty to anyone but her constituents. Your districts congressman should represent your interests, another districts congressman should represent theirs.

California voted in term limits in a proposition (which is passing 50%+1 in a vote of the people), people were mad at Willie Brown who was the Speaker for years. He was a liberal that was in a very safe district (made up of a section of San Francisco and Marin City in Marin, the two ares do not touch each other) but Willie ran the Assembly a lot better than anyone since, he also would look and hear both sides.

After Willie Brown was term limited out that is when California politics really went down hill fast. Also California lost some good conservative representatives that let DUMBocrats grab those seats to where now the Assembly and Senate are veto proof.

This.  But the 17th has to go.  The state govts need representation at the fed level....and a means to easily recall people that fail to represent the state govts.  

I think it would change the culture of politicians too. Would greedy snakes want in as badly knowing that they only have a few years to make profit versus a lifetime gig?

If we really wanted to stir things up, we'd make lobbying a form of treason by bribery. At the very least there should be significant caps on campaign donations. Literally make it $100 per person and entity. Defund the national conventions and start popping them for the back alley deals.

They're a bad idea. California tried it.

It makes things worse, not better.

Fuck, I hate arguing this over and over and over....no one seems to grasp the obvious on this issue.

1. We already have term limits. The popular vote removes anyone who the voters do not approve of. You can't fix voter issues by asking the people they vote for to fire themselves.

2. Experience actually matters. An always fresh batch of people tend to bicker and grandstand without getting much done, or doing things without fully understanding the intricacies of a complex government or the ramifications. Amateurs need seasoned leaders, too. Term limits hinders that.

3. What person who has their shit together, a successful career or business leaves it for 4-8 years to go to a temporary, thankless job? No one worth hiring, that's who. So, who goes in term limits government? People who use their limited time in office to shop influence for a gig or $$ after they're sent home. It becomes a corrupt job fair (see: California).

4. If you think elected officials don't give a fuck about you NOW, imagine when they have zero motivation to earn a re-election. Jesus christ, how is that one not obvious.

5. Our Founders didn't set term limits on these offices for a good fucking reason. Read 1-4, because they figured it out 200+ years ago.

These all seem to be excellent points.