• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

75% Prefer Term Limits - Do you?

Do you support defined term limits?


  • Total voters
    45
The further down the chain you go, the more counterproductive limiting the power of a politician becomes. It's one thing to limit a President, because his powers are strong to begin with and he has no particular constituency to keep him in check. Your Representative, on the other hand, has a much more immediate link with you; by overly neutralizing his authority, you end up hurting yourself.

The bolded assumes that we want something from government, and there are a segment of us who do not. I don't vote for my reps based on my wanting something. I vote for whomever I think will try to minimize the role of government in my life.
 
Yeah, um.....I don't see that at all.

I'm in Delaware - think Joe Biden for decades and decades.....

What if the term limits for Congress was 4 terms? Or 6 terms?


Biden was a Senator. His purview was the national arena, and, for that matter, he was extremely effective in matters of foreign affairs.

Your Representative - your local member of the House - is much more relevant in your life than your Senator, and far more so than your President.

The bolded assumes that we want something from government, and there are a segment of us who do not. I don't vote for my reps based on my wanting something. I vote for whomever I think will try to minimize the role of government in my life.

That's fine and everything, but utterly irrelevant. You can shriek hither and yonder about how libertarian and freedom-lovin' you are, and at the end of the day your district still sucks up the pork like any other. It's not an ideological concern; God knows I'm sympathetic in the abstract to banning earmarks and the like. It's a matter of "how does this country actually function, independent of all ideologies?".

The most pork-leaden districts in the United States are those Southern pastoral ones that rely on massive farm subsidies - and still shout at the top of their lungs how they want to "minimize the role of government in [their] lives". The basic functions of the United States are beyond ideology.
 
presidential : yes.

congress : no.

congressional term limits let voters off the hook.

the solution I prefer is this : tie congressional pay, vacation, and benefits to the national average.
 
the solution I prefer is this : tie congressional pay, vacation, and benefits to the national average.

Congratulations: you've just guaranteed a poor man will never be elected to Congress, and you've made Congress even more dependent on the benefits they accrue from lobbyists.
 
This idea of the Mr. Smithian, yeoman farmer as citizen-representative is quaint, and it's probably what Jefferson and the like had when they first began imagining what sort of representation the country would have, but it's not tenable in anything but theory.

A Representative is effective on the basis of how well he services his constituency; in particular, in the House, the concern is not - and ought not to be - immediately for the 'national good', but rather all 435 members are, and by design ought to be, more aligned with the basically non-ideological, functional needs of their districts. In order to serve them, he needs to have contacts in the so-called 'political class'; he needs seniority; he needs time to develop a portfolio, a record, to make himself predictable to his constituents. A term limit of two or four years automatically makes all 435 members of the House completely useless.

I'd argue that it's actually more important that Representatives be less hampered, within the relatively limited scope of their authority, than Senators or Presidents. A Senator or President is more abstract, with much broader interests in mind. But a Representative is your life-link to the government. Neuter him and you neuter yourself.
The government is not the power tit that I am trying to suck on. When a representative is more concerned about his career than his constituents, something is horribly wrong. If all politicians came from, and returned to "common folk", we'd have a lot less of the political elitism we have today.
 
This is dumb, but especially the mandatory waiting period is absolutely unworkable. It's arbitrary - why five years? Why not three? Or seven? - and doesn't have any sort of a rationale behind it.

The rational behind it is to ensure politicians can not carry over any influence to another office.


No, of course not. The only reason you'd ever do so is because you're represented by a member of the other Party, and then you'd only support doing so until your guy got in.

My elected officials are doing a good job. But at the same time I am against career politicians.


And well you shouldn't. You should want strong representation that commands as many resources as possible. That's logical, and in accord with the design of our competitive system of representation.

I want politicians who are in it because they think they can do some good.Not because they can get rich or amass power.
 
The government is not the power tit that I am trying to suck on. When a representative is more concerned about his career than his constituents, something is horribly wrong. If all politicians came from, and returned to "common folk", we'd have a lot less of the political elitism we have today.

Again: I don't give a good Goddamn about how Rugged your Individualism is. The 'political class' as you call it is infinitely preferable to anything approaching either the direct democracy of the Left or the insipid populism of the Right - we need a governing class that is capable of governing.

'Libertarianism' of the sort you want - where the House and Senate would have basically no function at all, where we'd elect officials and then do nothing with them - is beyond the American intent and experience, and will be forever.
 
The issue is career politicians have become disconnected from their constituents. They get wrapped up in a powerful, elitist world, where even their own decisions don't effect them much.

For an average, every day citizen who's exercising his short tenure as a politician, he realizes that in 2-4 years he's going to be an average citizen again, and as such, will tend to favor supporting the populace over supporting himself.

Nonsense, with no need or hope to run again he will set up "firends" with tons of pork to care for himself for the rest of his days. It is only in seeking re-election that they are forced to stay as honest as they do, without that mild pressure it is likely that total chaos would rule.
 
Congratulations: you've just guaranteed a poor man will never be elected to Congress, and you've made Congress even more dependent on the benefits they accrue from lobbyists.

I disagree. plenty of people work for the average wage and benefits, and it's already nearly impossible for a poor person to win a congressional seat. as for lobbyists and influence, we're talking in terms of hell being ten degrees warmer or so.
 
Absolutely not. I think career politicians is the worst idea on the planet. The system was designed to be for the people, by the people. Our politicians should be average citizens who temporarily serve their country. Not the rich, career assholes they are now.



So anyone who opposes career politicians is an idiot? It's that very same reason that our politicians are more concerned with their careers and playing ball with each other than actually representing their constituents.

Here is an odd idea: if you do not like career politicians, don't vote for them. If I like a career politician, why should you be able to take my option to vote for them away?
 
If I like a career politician, why should you be able to take my option to vote for them away?

How often does that happen?

How often are you voting for a guy/girl who's been in office for decades?
 
How often does that happen?

How often are you voting for a guy/girl who's been in office for decades?

When I lived in Michigan I voted for Carl Levin like clockwork. Guy did good work and mostly stood for the issues I agreed with. Why would I have wanted to vote for some one else when he was good at the job?
 
When I lived in Michigan I voted for Carl Levin like clockwork. Guy did good work and mostly stood for the issues I agreed with. Why would I have wanted to vote for some one else when he was good at the job?

Because there might be somebody better at it just waiting in the background?

Maybe because there's somebody you'd agree with 100%?
 
No. I don't think term limits will fix the problems we have with congress. It limits the choices of the people, and ensures the final term of the politician will be one where they are not beholden to their constituents. And even if term limits prevented the people from electing the same specific failed politicians over and over, it wouldn't prevent them from electing people just like them, which is what I feel they would inevitably end up doing.

...as if any congressmen or senator is beholden to their constituents, unless of course, "constituents" means lobbyists....

Seems to me term limiting is a way of corruption limiting....
 
...as if any congressmen or senator is beholden to their constituents, unless of course, "constituents" means lobbyists....

Somewhat true I suppose. I don't think term limits would do anything to limit that though.
 
Seems to me term limiting is a way of corruption limiting....

And yet, paradoxically enough, it tends to create stronger moral hazards for corruption, as congressional races become vacated so frequently and consequentially more intensely contested that special interests are able to drive harder and harder bargains in exchange for their support.
 
And yet, paradoxically enough, it tends to create stronger moral hazards for corruption, as congressional races become vacated so frequently and consequentially more intensely contested that special interests are able to drive harder and harder bargains in exchange for their support.

You have proof of this phenomena?
 
Because there might be somebody better at it just waiting in the background?

Maybe because there's somebody you'd agree with 100%?

And nothing prevented that person from running. I ask again, why should my ability to vote for the person I chose to represent me be limited because you do not like them?
 
When I lived in Michigan I voted for Carl Levin like clockwork. Guy did good work and mostly stood for the issues I agreed with. Why would I have wanted to vote for some one else when he was good at the job?

I feel the same about Ron Wyden. He's done a great job for his constituency.

Because there might be somebody better at it just waiting in the background?

Maybe because there's somebody you'd agree with 100%?

And maybe there is somebody I'd agree with less or disagree with entirely.
 
Not only should there be term limits there should also be a five year waiting period before someone can run for a different office.For example someone who was a senator should wait 5 years before being allowed to run for president,mayor,congressmen, or some other elected or appointed office.
I strongly disagree with all of this. We are, or should be, free to choose whomever we want as our elected representatives, and in spite of all our whining and moaning... we do.

Having said that, I will admit to being annoyed when a person runs for two offices at the same time. For example, when a sitting Senator runs for Vice-President and also hedges his bets by running for re-election as senator as well.
 
This is dumb, but especially the mandatory waiting period is absolutely unworkable. It's arbitrary - why five years? Why not three? Or seven? - and doesn't have any sort of a rationale behind it.

Politicians being 'insiders' is actually a good thing, and political 'outsiders' are generally kept outside for a reason. You absolutely want your Representative to have as many contacts as possible, in order to accomplish more for his district. And you want a skilled and connected politician who represents you to advance in the political arena.


It sounds good to say, "grr! meany politician doo-doo heads!". But when it comes to your representation in Congress, would you ever want him to be anything but the most effective, on-the-ball Representative anybody's ever seen? Would you vote to neuter and emasculate him politically?

No, of course not. The only reason you'd ever do so is because you're represented by a member of the other Party, and then you'd only support doing so until your guy got in.

And well you shouldn't. You should want strong representation that commands as many resources as possible. That's logical, and in accord with the design of our competitive system of representation.
I oppose term limits, but if we do have them they should be equal and across the board for every body (i.e.: Senate, House, etc.) precisely to eliminate any representative disparity.
 
Having said that, I will admit to being annoyed when a person runs for two offices at the same time. For example, when a sitting Senator runs for Vice-President and also hedges his bets by running for re-election as senator as well.

I don't have much of a problem with that if they are picked to be the Vice-President within a few days of, or after, the primary for that election. Withdrawing from the race at that point would leave the party in a needlessly precarious position.
 
I don't have much of a problem with that if they are picked to be the Vice-President within a few days of, or after, the primary for that election. Withdrawing from the race at that point would leave the party in a needlessly precarious position.
Sometimes they win both. When that happens they resign the Senator seat, and the constituents are the ones who are screwed. They either get a selected representative that they may never have voted for in the first place, and/or they get the cost of a special election.
 
Back
Top Bottom