• 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!

Congressional term limits

Would you support this amendment to the US Constitution?

  • Total voters
    35
CaptainCourtesy said:
Ummm... Vader, I don't think that this is a partisan issue. If you look at this thread, you have folks from both sides of the political spectrum on each side of the issue.
Click to expand...

Even so Cap. Term limits are a barrier to corruption. There has to be a failsafe to prevent the kind of corruption that would occur otherwise.
 
Cephus said:
Certainly. I just want a computer to draw lines, keeping general populations equivalent, without any regard for the political bent of the particular area. District lines need to be re-drawn at least once a decade to keep political hacks from getting too comfortable. That way, they actually have to represent their districts instead of representing their personal political interests.
Click to expand...

Excellent idea, although I would think this should be done at the state level, not federal.
 
Hasn't worked well in California. One incompetent boob in Sacramento is replaced by another from the Incompetent Boob Politician Factory, and for some strange reason the state STILL can't figure out that it's budget problems all reside on the spending side of the ledger.

Why assume anything would be different in Washington?
 
kansaswhig said:
You couldn't be more wrong.

30+ year dynasties of "ruling class" incumbents who ensure that no one else can afford to campaign against them limits the choice of voters.

What did you think when they wheeled Sen. Byrd into the S.O.T.U speech tonight, drooling all over himself? Is that what W.V. deserves? No, it's their only choice b/c the Byrd campaign gets all the money.
Click to expand...

Funny, are you saying the people of West Virginia are so stupid they can't discover there's at least two names on the ballot in front of them? Well, if that's the case, they deserve what they get, a Klansman in their Senate seat.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Hasn't worked well in California. One incompetent boob in Sacramento is replaced by another from the Incompetent Boob Politician Factory, and for some strange reason the state STILL can't figure out that it's budget problems all reside on the spending side of the ledger.

Why assume anything would be different in Washington?
Click to expand...

It probably won't be. Unless somehow, the majority of the popliticians lost their next election...and maybe not even then.
 
Vader said:
Even so Cap. Term limits are a barrier to corruption. There has to be a failsafe to prevent the kind of corruption that would occur otherwise.
Click to expand...

Works both ways, though, Vader. You get someone good (for once) and you can't keep them. Let the voters handle it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Works both ways, though, Vader. You get someone good (for once) and you can't keep them. Let the voters handle it.
Click to expand...

Hmm...

Perhaps limits on the ways in which incumbent politicians can tilt the balance in their favor would be in order, then?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Works both ways, though, Vader. You get someone good (for once) and you can't keep them.
Click to expand...

I'm more concerned with getting bad people out than with getting good people in.

Let the voters handle it.
Click to expand...

But the voters of different states affect me, even though I can't vote for their candidates.
 
Dav said:
I'm more concerned with getting bad people out than with getting good people in.
Click to expand...

Both concern me.

But the voters of different states affect me, even though I can't vote for their candidates.
Click to expand...

Well, that's democracy. Just because you don't like a candidate, doesn't mean others agree. They may think he represents exactly what they want.
 
Hasn't worked too well in California where we already have this.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Hasn't worked too well in California where we already have this.
Click to expand...

What's the main problem?

We have term limits in Virginia, but only for the Governor (one term). Our Congressman and Senators can serve a lifetime. And 99% of them do.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Both concern me.
Click to expand...

Yes, but seeing as how now - at least in the perception of the public, which is really all that matters - we have more bad people than good, a policy that would get rid of bad people would be effective even if it also got rid of good people.

Well, that's democracy. Just because you don't like a candidate, doesn't mean others agree. They may think he represents exactly what they want.
Click to expand...

Yes, and what they want, unfortunately, is power. Senior Congressmen and Senators have set it up so that seniority matters a lot in the legislative process, thus meaning that if voters want to vote out the incumbent, they have to vote to give themselves significantly less power than previously. Thus keeping bad incumbents in and good challengers out.

There is a lot of other things that give incumbents an unfair advantage as well.

the makeout hobo said:
Hasn't worked too well in California where we already have this.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you win the million dollar cash award for being the third person to bring this exact same point up.
 
Term limits are one of the most inane ideas ever. We don't need term limits - we have terms. If the voters keep electing these people, that's all that matters. That's democracy.
 
misterman said:
Term limits are one of the most inane ideas ever. We don't need term limits - we have terms. If the voters keep electing these people, that's all that matters. That's democracy.
Click to expand...

So do you think we should be voting the majority of politicians out of office every few years?
 
Winnb said:
So do you think we should be voting the majority of politicians out of office every few years?
Click to expand...

I think we should be trusting the voters to decide that.
 
misterman said:
Term limits are one of the most inane ideas ever. We don't need term limits - we have terms. If the voters keep electing these people, that's all that matters. That's democracy.
Click to expand...

Those cases where there is no opposition - then what? It's not as if the voters can vote for the other person when the incumbent is doing a ****ty job.

Is it democracy to have an incumbent win by default because nobody has the funds to run against an old cronie with often times a huge bankroll and lots of special interest groups funding them?
 
I agree with Congressional term limits. I don't trust people enough to be confident that they would refuse a soft tyranny in their lives.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
Those cases where there is no opposition - then what? It's not as if the voters can vote for the other person when the incumbent is doing a ****ty job.
Click to expand...

If the guy is doing a ****ty job, why is there no opposition?

Is it democracy to have an incumbent win by default because nobody has the funds to run against an old cronie with often times a huge bankroll and lots of special interest groups funding them?
Click to expand...

If the guy is doing a ****ty job and the voters are just itching to get rid of him, it shouldn't take much money to get the job done. If the voters just vote for whoever they see on TV the most, that's their right.

There is no argument for term limits that doesn't come down to "the voters are too stupid."
 
misterman said:
I think we should be trusting the voters to decide that.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but with the gerrymandering that occurs, coupled with the money and power an incumbent inherits once they're in office... well it's tough to vote someone out.

EDIT. Obviously gerrymandering doesn't apply to Senators. They either win the state or they don't.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
I think we should be trusting the voters to decide that.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't trust most voters to make an informed decision. Name recognition plays a big role in incumbents getting the vote, whereas newcomers don't have that immediate appeal to people who just walk into the polls and vote for someone based on the fact that they 'recognize' the name. Unfortunately, the voting records of their representatives often aren't researched or scrutinized.
 
Winnb said:
Agreed, but with the gerrymandering that occurs, coupled with the money and power an incumbent inherits once they're in office... well it's tough to vote someone out.
Click to expand...

If the problem is gerrymandering, the solution is to control gerrymandering.

Money and power is irrelevant. The voters still decide. If they pick the guy who throws the most ads at them, that's their fault. If they pick the guy who has alot of power, well, maybe that's a good choice for them.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Works both ways, though, Vader. You get someone good (for once) and you can't keep them. Let the voters handle it.
Click to expand...

In a pefect world, sure that would be true. Remember ... power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Given enough time, even those most forthright individual can be corrupteed. For this reason, politicans must be changed often. Doing so removes corrupted individuals from office.

Without limits there is no balance. Corruption goes unchecked we would be doomed. Imagine if President Nixon, who participated in the commission of a felony, had never been removed from office?

Unfortunately, politics and corruption are as closely related as eggs and bacon, death and taxes, Michelle Obama and a horsehair weeve.

Term limits are a part of the system of checks and balances upon which our country was founded.

If nothing else, we need a system by which a senator/congressman can be removed from office. A vote of no confidence or something similar.
A system by which dishonest people can be removed from office.
 
misterman said:
If the problem is gerrymandering, the solution is to control gerrymandering.
Click to expand...

That would require the people that are doing the gerrymandering to stop the gerrymandering. So far that has proven to be an impossible task for them.


Money and power is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

That is an extremely difficult claim to prove in American politics. Are you saying that money and power are irrelevant in an American election? If true it would seem that our politicians are spending a tremendous amount of time raising money for no reason.


The voters still decide. If they pick the guy who throws the most ads at them, that's their fault. If they pick the guy who has alot of power, well, maybe that's a good choice for them.
Click to expand...

Well that goes back to the original problem. The person with the most money can throw the "most ads at'em". And that person is probably the incumbent. Not always, I'll give you that, but about 95% of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom