No. Let them serve as long as both they choose and as long as they can win re-election.
Yes. 1 term limit per office, lifetime. (2 yrs for Congress, 6 yrs for Senate).
Yes. 1 consecutive term limit per office (1 term at a time, even if completing an unexpired term)
Yes. But I believe this is how many terms should be the limit. (Please specify)
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
There is some truth to this even to my own hypocrisy in a sense. But that's just an obvious observation of wanting best results. Nonetheless, if I had to choose, for better or worse, I would choose term limits. Because even if we ended up with some less than intelligent people in office, there are still former elected officials and scholars who can serve in advisory roles.
I do think you did bring up a very good point, that a term limit would be limiting your choice in an election. And while that is unfair, we also have to consider is it fair to the people of that district to lack opportunity to serve in that office, when there are some incumbents who have served in that same office for up to 6 decades? Yes, you can also argue that they can also run for office themselves and try to unseat an incumbent. But, with a term-limit, you can empower the people to have more opportunities to serve in an office that they would otherwise be unlikely to win. There are some incumbents who make a lot of connections, and have ties to groups that tend to help their candidacy. That also leads to corruption, and ethics violations. But with a term limit, every election is an open election, and they go in for a few years, then finish their term. Just as the founding fathers intended.
3 years would be an odd year, and make things confusing.
I like the 2 year process. But I would like a 1 year better. But no less than one year because then we'd have to repeatedly go to polls multiple times a year. But there's usually an election every year anyway. One primary election and one general election. That would be enough.
Okay. I've revised my idea. House term should be three years, you can go over three house terms of two Senate terms, but you cannot remain a lobbyist in D.C. once you retire if you go over (like 52% of all congressmen do nowadays), and you cannot serve consecutive terms after that point. I know, you'll inevitably end up getting rid of the one or two decent politicians by doing that, but I guarantee you will save a hell of a lot more on all the corrupt jerkoffs you get out of the system.
The term 'career politician' should not exist, thus such people should not exist. Yeah, some will say 'just vote them out', but due to gerrymandering and buying off votes, this is often next to impossible. And some will say 'but what about good politicians?' Oh well… we are a nation of 300+ million people, certainly we can come with with a couple hundred here and there that are 'good' and would follow the Constitution.
Power corrupts. Even the most well intentioned will eventually be corrupted in DC, thus get in, do good work, get out. Otherwise we will just get more of the same two party system that only cares about itself and it's own wallets and power, and as time goes by, we will see more and more worthless 'officials' in office.
Why artificially limit people's choices, especially on the basis of the fact that the public probably approves of them enough to elect them again?
There should be Instant Runoff Voting
But having said that, gerrymandering of districts makes elections useless in most cases. The winner is already decided prior to the first vote ever being cast. Then too, both parties, representatives and senators owe their heart and souls to the big money people, huge donors, corporations, special interests, Wall Street, pacs and super pacs, lobbyists, these folks donate millions and sometimes tens of millions to make sure their favorite congressman or senator and even president wins. A lot of the folks I mentioned donate to both parties, just in case their number one guy loses. No matter, by donating to both parties they have guaranteed that no matter who wins, the winner will owe them.
We have the best government money can buy and it works, for the the people who have the money. Term limits will not solve that problem.
Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
As for voting them out, the problem is that people don't always vote for the same person in a primary and general election. Perhaps their primary candidate didn't win. They might vote for someone once and they might even win and do a great job, but it does not always mean that they are the only person who can do that job.
Intelligence is one thing. They can learn from other experienced former Congresspersons, former Senators, and such. But, it's the decision making that is most important. Do they vote for everything you believe in? Or is it limiting the variety of experience that can be brought there.
If the purpose of leadership is to create more leaders, and not more followers, than the Congressperson should lead by an example that can be followed by their successor. This also includes mistakes to NOT make.