Let me just state that up until very very recently I was firmly opposed to term limits. My feeling was the voters know what they are doing…should have the choice to elect their own officials…and if we needed another FDR and had another FDR we should be able to elect him/her as often as we could.
But I have changed my mind for a number of reasons.
First…one of the reasons we are finding Congress so incredibly inflexible and truculent one side of the aisle to the other is because they are totally encamped in their positions. The leadership never changes except from maybe majority to minority leader and the plebes stay the same session after session and nobody ever comes up with a new idea or a change in position because there is seldom enough turn over to accomplish that. ENOUGH!
New faces…new ideas…short term to accomplish your goal…means negotiation, cooperation and hard work.
Second…term limits would take some of the big money out of campaigns. There would be less inclination by lobbyists, big business or big money to invest in politicians who can hold office for a short term…they would be of little utility to the 1%’ers. Even for those pols who can move from House to Senate to maybe the Presidency…the money interests should be less…….interested.
So what term limits? The President is already limited to two terms…eight years. Maybe the Senate to two terms as well…12 years. The House the same 12 years…but change their terms to four years and alternate the terms like the Senate seats…so three terms of four years each…if not that…if we keep two year terms make it five terms for a total of 10 years. It is the lower house after all! LOL!
btw: I would suggest that at the state and local levels too…I just read about a Wisconsin elected official who is retiring after 50 years in the same office. WTF?
The really out there suggestion: the House goes to four years…alternating election cycles…but never gets elected at all…it gets drawn from the list of registered voters and they have to serve their term like jury duty…ONE TERM!
Thanks for putting out your view and an opposing one.
I come down against limits.
I agree with the other article that newer politicians are more likely to be ideologues plus seak the “education” lobbyists and their checkbooks carry.
Plus those that put money on a politician may do it so he or she can rise rapidly. Term limits wouldn’t have as big an impact on a politican that simply tries to climb the next step whenever term 2 ends.
Plus term limits don’t fix gerrymandering.
Thanks for putting out your view and an opposing one.
I come down against limits.
I agree with the other article that newer politicians are more likely to be ideologues plus seak the “education” lobbyists and their checkbooks carry.
Plus those that put money on a politician may do it so he or she can rise rapidly. Term limits wouldn’t have as big an impact on a politican that simply tries to climb the next step whenever term 2 ends.
Plus term limits don’t fix gerrymandering-a big problem.
I have been arguing for term limits for decades. No one would listen. Now it’s too late.
I am in favor of them in principle, but not in reality. We need the electorate to become actively engaged in this country again. We need to demand non-partisan redistricting, and actually punish politicians when they refuse to work in the public interest.
The article posted as a counter point makes a good argument about why term limits don’t really work.