• 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!

Should Term Limits be implemented for Congress?

Should Term Limits be implemented for Congress?

  • Yes

    Votes: 42 57.5%
  • No

    Votes: 25 34.2%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 8.2%

  • Total voters
    73
There is no need to hamper constituents for voting for someone they like because of a term limit. If you dont like your incumbent then dont vote for them.
 
The only disadvantage that I could see is that the politicians who really are great wouldn't be able to stay there. But we would supposedly continue to elect more really great politicians.

The benefits are numerous. What are your thoughts?


And my plug: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/create-term-limits-congress/bm01vV2m sign the petition if you agree. Let's get Obama to submit an amendment. Or if he won't, let him explain why not. It's time to take the lobbyists out of Washington.

If this petition gets 150 signatures, it will go public. It needs 100,000 by 4/14/13. I'm an introvert. I don't know 150 people and I don't have facebook. If you believe in this cause, please sign it and share it.

If you don't believe in it, why not? Am I missing something?


Not only should there be term limits there should also be a five year waiting periods between different elected and appointed offices so that a politician can't simply hop from one office to the other once he finished his last term of a particular office. This would make it hard for there to be a career politician and ensure that these people actually live in their district for awhile between offices. People in this country have the attention span of a gnat when it comes to politics, so the idea that you can simply vote out bad politicians is laughable and only something a retard would believe.
 
There is no need to hamper constituents for voting for someone they like because of a term limit. If you dont like your incumbent then dont vote for them.

Do you feel the same way about presidents? Should they have unlimited time in office if elected?
 
If Progressives were serious about getting big business out of politics this would be a step in the right direction
 
Plain and simple, we need term limits. As an example, every 2-4 years in Cincinnati, they redraw the district lines based on where republican voters live to ensure the same guy wins. He was an awful congressman and there was no way to get him voted out, since he had more republican voters in the district.

I didn't have an issue with him being a republican, I had an issue with him being a poor congressman. If there were term limits, he would have been out a long time ago and maybe someone better would have taken his place. Or someone worse. At least get the stagnant old farts out of congress and allow the chance for change. Seriously, if you look like you need to wear depends, what business do you have being in congress?
 
Wrong. The power to replace them lies with the majority.

True and that is why it is called Representative Government. You as a single has a say, but it is the majority that decides who stays or doesn't.
 
California has term limits for the state legislators. The results have been mixed. The downside is that legislators are termed out when they have the knowledge and seniority to be most effective. The positive side is that individuals can't build up as much of a power-base that gives them a disproportionate amount of power. Another outcome is a game of musical chairs where the politicians move from job to job every eight years.

I would rather see other reforms of congress first before trying term limits, such as eliminating official recognition of the parties, ending seniority, eliminating filibusters, limiting the power of committee chairs to kill legislation and others. If that can't be done, or is found to be ineffective, then a limit of four four-year terms would be worth trying.
 
Why?

Has term limits improved the POTUS?

Nope.

Just one loser after another.
 
The only disadvantage that I could see is that the politicians who really are great wouldn't be able to stay there. But we would supposedly continue to elect more really great politicians.

The benefits are numerous. What are your thoughts?


And my plug: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/create-term-limits-congress/bm01vV2m sign the petition if you agree. Let's get Obama to submit an amendment. Or if he won't, let him explain why not. It's time to take the lobbyists out of Washington.

If this petition gets 150 signatures, it will go public. It needs 100,000 by 4/14/13. I'm an introvert. I don't know 150 people and I don't have facebook. If you believe in this cause, please sign it and share it.

If you don't believe in it, why not? Am I missing something?

I'm totally for term limits. I think the longer a politician stays in the office, the more corrupt he/she becomes. A politician actually said that. Don't remember who.
 
Our elected officials were not meant to have careers spanning three and four decades. Incumbents have a distinct and unfair advantage in getting re-elected. If you want to get rid of corruption and abuse of power - you should be for term limits on all elected offices. If you want the same old crap that we have now - if you want to keep the status quo and have no issue with the fools we have destroying our country while filling their pockets with cash and exempting themselves from the laws they make, you are against term limits.
 
Is there no federal office to decide districts.

No.

Congressional districts are drawn by state legislatures, according to state law within those states.
 
no. outlaw gerrymandering nationwide instead. plug the census data into a computer, and let the software draw the districts. if we did this, districts would only change to reflect census data.

Excellent idea!
 
Our elected officials were not meant to have careers spanning three and four decades.
i have never seen this expressed as a founders' intent; do you have a cite to back up the assertion?
Incumbents have a distinct and unfair advantage in getting re-elected.
they do enjoy an advantage. but i cannot see why it should be found an unfair one. please share with us your rationale for making such a claim
If you want to get rid of corruption and abuse of power - you should be for term limits on all elected offices.
if you want to get rid of corruption then get rid of legal bribes, campaign funds funneled to candidates by unions, corporations and foreign governments. return the power to the people by only allowing registered voters to make campaign contributions not found illegal
until then, we will continue to have the best government money can buy
If you want the same old crap that we have now - if you want to keep the status quo and have no issue with the fools we have destroying our country while filling their pockets with cash and exempting themselves from the laws they make, you are against term limits.
it is human nature to pay attention to the expectations of those who fund your activity. return that to the people and the politicians will again address the peoples' concerns
 
True, the election process was meant to serve as those limits. They trusted greatly in the idea of the people’s vote.

Where they sought to limit the terms was in the Senate, which was meant to be elected by the State rather than the people. Jefferson even made a direct proposal of this…

"I proposed the representatives (and not the people) should choose the [State] Senate... To make them independent I had proposed that they should hold their places for nine years and then go out (one third every three years) and be incapable forever of being re-elected to that house. My idea was that if they might be re-elected, they would be casting their eye forward to the period of election (however distant) and be currying favor with the electors and consequently dependent on them. My reason for fixing them in office for a term of years rather than for life was that they might have an idea that they were at a certain period to return into the mass of the people and become the governed instead of the governor, which might still keep alive that regard to the public good that otherwise they might perhaps be induced by their independence to forget." --Thomas Jefferson to E. Pendleton, 1776.

This is where I think the imbalance comes from.

Term limits in the House of Representatives should remain at the will of the people’s vote, elections every two years, for two year terms, reelected as many times as the people vote for them.

Repeal the 17th Amendment placing the Senate election back into control of the States, elections every two years, for six year terms (with one-third being renewed every two years), but be ineligible from being re-elected to the Senate thereafter.
 
No.

Congressional districts are drawn by state legislatures, according to state law within those states.

That sounds like a horrible idea. I imagine states form districts to have an advantage in numbers over others and for political goals to help a party.
 
I don't really think that long careers in politics are the problem. Being a politician requires a specific skillset like any other profession, and I would rather that the people who governing the country be practiced and skilled at doing so, rather than, for lack of a better term, noobs. The troubles I find, are the corrupting influence of private money. Both in terms of campaign contributions, and in terms of cushy private sector jobs after leaving public service. The latter is essentially just a quid pro quo bribe that takes a while to kick in. If anything, keeping those politicians in the public position would be better than letting them favor a private entity, and then receiving a payoff later, once they are legally permitted. And most of those private jobs are lobbyists, where we return to the problem of campaign money. The issue isn't a long career. The issue is the money.
 
This is a double edged sword. Sure, career politicians with their sense of entitlement, their detachment from reality and the struggles their constituents face are 2 glaring examples (2 out of many, too-many) that can be given as to why term limits should be set. However, in a representative democracy don't we have an obligation to ourselves to allow whomever we like the ability to be elected and to represent us for as long as we see fit?

Would not a decentralization of Federal authority be a more fitting response? This allowing the Pelosi's and the McConnell's, the McCain's and the Hatch's to be limited in their scope and capability to influence policy on a national scale.
 
...they do enjoy an advantage. but i cannot see why it should be found an unfair one. please share with us your rationale for making such a claim...

Incumbents get access to lists of constituents and get free mailings of newsletters and announcements etc.

They can procure gifts to their constituents that enhance their electability such as job training grants, public works projects and keeping military bases open.

They have the ability to reward local citizens with appointments, grants, scholarships and awards.

They have a staff that helps people having personal problems with government proceses. (i.e problems with obtaining a passport)

They get their name in the newspaper almost everytime they send out a press release (created and distributed by their taxpayer-paid staff) boasting of an accomplishment.

They get their name in the newspaper almost everytime they make a public appearance or meet with a VIP.

They can claim co-sponsorship credit for legislation that they did not do any work on.

They can reward their friends/donors/allies with jobs and appointments to advisory bodies, commissions etc.

They can reward their friends/donors/allies with legislation that provides grants, loans, government contracts and exemptions to regulations etc.

They automatically assume leadership positions in their political party.

Their political party will almost surely support their re-election, even if there is a pretense of having a primary election or other process.

Their name is listed on the ballot as an incumbent, almost guaranteeing a vote from lazy and/or uninformed voters content with the status quo.

They are given awards, ceremonies and have public works projects named after them by local politicians seeking favor.

They can access high paying and/or prestigious speaking engagements, guest editorials and book contracts.

All of these benefits are considered perfectly legal and even ethical, if done with a veneer of legality. (i.e. obscuring the connection between a campaign donation and a legislation benefitting the donar.)
 
Incumbents get access to lists of constituents and get free mailings of newsletters and announcements etc.

They can procure gifts to their constituents that enhance their electability such as job training grants, public works projects and keeping military bases open.

They have the ability to reward local citizens with appointments, grants, scholarships and awards.

They have a staff that helps people having personal problems with government proceses. (i.e problems with obtaining a passport)

They get their name in the newspaper almost everytime they send out a press release (created and distributed by their taxpayer-paid staff) boasting of an accomplishment.

They get their name in the newspaper almost everytime they make a public appearance or meet with a VIP.

They can claim co-sponsorship credit for legislation that they did not do any work on.

They can reward their friends/donors/allies with jobs and appointments to advisory bodies, commissions etc.

They can reward their friends/donors/allies with legislation that provides grants, loans, government contracts and exemptions to regulations etc.

They automatically assume leadership positions in their political party.

Their political party will almost surely support their re-election, even if there is a pretense of having a primary election or other process.

Their name is listed on the ballot as an incumbent, almost guaranteeing a vote from lazy and/or uninformed voters content with the status quo.

They are given awards, ceremonies and have public works projects named after them by local politicians seeking favor.

They can access high paying and/or prestigious speaking engagements, guest editorials and book contracts.

All of these benefits are considered perfectly legal and even ethical, if done with a veneer of legality. (Obscuring the connection between a campaign donation and a legislation benefitting the donar.)

again, i acknowledge the advantage of incumbency
but none of what you posted indicates why that advantage should be found unfair
 
Back
Top Bottom