• 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 Congress have term limits?

Should U.S. Congress & Senate have term limits?


  • Total voters
    27
Yes, just as they now do, they are called winning re-election. ;)
 
I voted the 2nd option, but I would also be alright with the 3rd option. Mixed feelings between the two.

I do feel that incumbency does give an unfair advantage to so few, taking away the voice, and opportunity of the many.
 
not a big fan of the idea.... but I wouldn't fight against it if it happened.

I rather like the idea of being able to choose my representation... i'm not a fan of a statute limiting that choice arbitrarily.

that's the funny thing about term limits... everybody is in favor of them when they don't like the congresscritter... but nobody thinks about a congresscritter you actually like and want to keep around.

if we had congresscritters that were worth a damn, i would oppose term limits more ardently... but we don't, so i don't...every stinking one of them sucks.
 
I picked the last option. Four terms for House. Two for Senate. Politicians are like diapers. Both need to be changed often, and for the same reason.
 
I'm torn on this topic. I understand the rationale but I also feel that people should be able to elect who they want.
 
OTJ training every two years makes so much sense.
A 3-year term makes more sense--since nothing happens in the first or last year of the 2-year term .
 
How do you feel about term limits for Senate and Congress?


the founders created a system, of only 2 years for each person of the house, want to remove them vote him out!

the senate was a different matter, the senators were picked by the legislature of states, ..it has been ONLY after the 17th amendment you have long term serving senators.

repeal the 17th to put government back in balance
 
Alright. So what reasons do you like this? (I'm not criticizing your opinion, just curious as to your reasons)

If you assume that the best candidate running (in your district) has won the prior election to represent you, and now you also know their actual job performance, then why should they not be able to run for that office again? Would you also advocate limiting all others in civil service positions to 2 to 6 years?
 
not a big fan of the idea.... but I wouldn't fight against it if it happened.

I rather like the idea of being able to choose my representation... i'm not a fan of a statute limiting that choice arbitrarily.

that's the funny thing about term limits... everybody is in favor of them when they don't like the congresscritter... but nobody thinks about a congresscritter you actually like and want to keep around.

if we had congresscritters that were worth a damn, i would oppose term limits more ardently... but we don't, so i don't...every stinking one of them sucks.

I think it's kinda like, morals would be what you think is right or wrong, but ethics would be how you determine right or wrong. One might morally be against term limits if they encounter bad politicians, but it would be unethical and hypocritical if they changed their mind just because of having bad politicians.

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.
 
OTJ training every two years makes so much sense.
A 3-year term makes more sense--since nothing happens in the first or last year of the 2-year term .

A lot can happen at any time.

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.
 
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.

Jesus Christ, you're telling me we can fit more of the bastards in????
 
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?
 
How do you feel about term limits for Senate and Congress?

We have them, it is called elections and the defeat of Cantor shows what can happen if the people really want a change. Just go back to 2010 when 63 seats in the house changed parties, another example of how elections are term limits.

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.
 
the founders created a system, of only 2 years for each person of the house, want to remove them vote him out!

the senate was a different matter, the senators were picked by the legislature of states, ..it has been ONLY after the 17th amendment you have long term serving senators.

repeal the 17th to put government back in balance

That's very true about the Senators! Thank you for sharing that! May 13, 1912 is when the people directly elected their Senators. I forget if they had different rules for vacancies than they do now. As in, the legislature would just vote in someone else, rather than a Governor filling in a vacancy, and then having a special election.

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.
 
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.

Too confusing. And I don't mind someone being a lobbyist after their term(s) is/are up/
 
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.

Good point. Some people think one general idea that sounds nice in theory will always work in practice, but it wouldn't always.

This includes me too. Like with this idea I brought up. It could end up having it's own pro's and con's too.
 
That's very true about the Senators! Thank you for sharing that! May 13, 1912 is when the people directly elected their Senators. I forget if they had different rules for vacancies than they do now. As in, the legislature would just vote in someone else, rather than a Governor filling in a vacancy, and then having a special election.

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.

one thing i didn't point out before, repeal the 17th...and you cripple lobbying in Washington.
 
Last edited:
Too confusing. And I don't mind someone being a lobbyist after their term(s) is/are up/

Problem is, these people always end up corrupt, and then they just stay in Washington forever, advancing some political agenda and making money off the system of bribes and extortion that our government has now become.
 
If all we have to do to get rid of Lobbyists is repeal the 17th amendment, then how come peeka chaka no wookiee boonowa tweepie Solo? Ho ho hoooo.

images


Ernst barkmann: 0
D.C. lobbyists: 0
Jabba: 1
 
If all we have to do to get rid of Lobbyists is repeal the 17th amendment, then how come peeka chaka no wookiee boonowa tweepie Solo? Ho ho hoooo.

images


Ernst barkmann: 0
D.C. lobbyists: 0
Jabba: 1

people think because they vote for someone this some how gives them power, ..however this not always correct.

by having direct election in both parts of congress, this makes america a democracy, ...which as Madison states is full of factious combinations...ie special interest...in federalist #10

the founders did not create a democracy, but instead a republic of divided powers, the people and the states both share power.

since power is divided and not just in 1 set of hands, its harder for government to become corrupt, and tyrannical.......lobbying is more difficult to accomplish.
 
Back
Top Bottom