Do you support term limits

(Take Two - D'oh)

Some people seem to like term limits, feeling it keeps people from being "career" politicians, takes away the "incumbant advantage" from stiffling competition, lowers the amount of special interest, makes politicians focus on legislating not running for reelection, etc.

On the flip side, some seem to dislike them as it limits the peoples choices, doesn't allow people to become well versed in effectively doing the job, amongst other reasons.

What are your thoughts on term limits on the federal level and why we should / shouldn't have them.

Easy answer: no. Politicians should not limit my choices in politicians.

Can the threads be merged or would that jack the poll? If not:

"I support terms limits that take into account the time neccessary to learn the job v. the time neccessary to let the power corrupt you."

I support presidential term limits due to the power associated with the office and a long history of electioneering on both sides. I support very long term limits in congress because it prevents having someone control an area for too long and only seeking to make personal profit.

However ... I am completely open to having my opinion changed. It's also in my nature to say that the vote of the people is already a term limit. So its a close call for me.

We should have term limits.There should also be a four year waiting period between the different offices and a ten year waiting period before they are allowed to lobby.So if someone who served as a senator wants to run for congress or president then he or she should have to wait four years before being allowed to run for that office.

Term limits are idiotic by definition.

If the voters don't want someone in office, they can just vote them out.

Term limits are for sore losers who don't like the fact that they keep losing elections. They're anti-democratic.

I remember back in the early 90s when term limits were a big thing. They were on the ballot in a few states. I remember that in one congressional district, in Washington state I think, the voters passed a term limit referendum - and at the same time, re-elected a congressman who was already past the limit! Um, duh.

It's up to the voters to decide when an elected official's term is over. As for POTUS, 2 terms is enough.

misterman said:

Term limits are idiotic by definition.

Click to expand...

No they are not.Besides that learn to use a dictionary instead of making up definitions.

If the voters don't want someone in office, they can just vote them out.

Click to expand...

Most voters pay more attention to dumb ass reality shows,sports, celeb bull **** news and other stuff than they pay attention to politics. This is why the same old scumbags keep getting elected.They will keep voting for the same scumbags as long as the idiot box tells to.

Term limits are for sore losers who don't like the fact that they keep losing elections.

Click to expand...

Term limits are to ensure politicians do not stay in office to become too corrupt.

They're anti-democratic.

Click to expand...

There is nothing anti-democratic about imposing term limits.Term limits cut down on corruption.

I remember back in the early 90s when term limits were a big thing. They were on the ballot in a few states. I remember that in one congressional district, in Washington state I think, the voters passed a term limit referendum - and at the same time, re-elected a congressman who was already past the limit! Um, duh.

Click to expand...

This proves my point that most voters do not pay attention to politics and why we need term limits in the first place.This is why this country has the problems it has. So it is idiotic to say "if you do not like a politician then vote him out".

misterman said:

Term limits are idiotic by definition.

If the voters don't want someone in office, they can just vote them out.

Click to expand...

Umm no. If it's that simple it would happen more often. When Congress has a 9% approval rating and a 90% incumbent reelection rate, something is wrong. Specifically, the longer legislators are in Congress, the more corrupt they become. And the more likely any particular legislator is to be seeking reelection, the easier it is to buy them off.

Term limits are for sore losers who don't like the fact that they keep losing elections. They're anti-democratic.

Click to expand...

It's not exactly difficult to find another qualified candidate of a similar political ideology. Very few members of Congress are irreplaceable. The issue has nothing to do with "losers who keep losing elections," as they would probably continue to lose elections to members of the dominant party in their district even with term limits; the issue is corruption and the culture that is created in Congress by lifetime politicians.

I remember back in the early 90s when term limits were a big thing. They were on the ballot in a few states. I remember that in one congressional district, in Washington state I think, the voters passed a term limit referendum - and at the same time, re-elected a congressman who was already past the limit! Um, duh.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a perfect example of why term limits are necessary. Obviously the voters in that district wanted term limits, but if it was simple as "just vote him out of office" as you claimed, then they would have done so anyway.

Parrish said:

It's up to the voters to decide when an elected official's term is over. As for POTUS, 2 terms is enough.

Click to expand...

If you are going to say let the voters decided when an elected official's term is over then why not let the voters decided when a president's term is over? The president is an elected official just as much as a congressman and senator is. The bills he votes yes for or veto's effects the country just as much as the bills congress and senate write and approve of before sending to the president's desk. Most of the stuff the president does couldn't even be done without the approval or congress and senate.

jamesrage said:

Most voters pay more attention to dumb ass reality shows,sports, celeb bull **** news and other stuff than they pay attention to politics. This is why the same old scumbags keep getting elected.They will keep voting for the same scumbags as long as the idiot box tells to.

Click to expand...

Tough.

Voters can vote for whomever they want. You don't get to tell them they can't. That's democracy. Deal with it.

Term limits are to ensure politicians do not stay in office to become too corrupt.

Click to expand...

No, that's what elections are for.

What if a politician isn't corrupt and the voters want him/her past the term limit? They should have that choice.

There is nothing anti-democratic about imposing term limits.

Click to expand...

Of course there is. It limits who the voters can choose.

Term limits cut down on corruption.

Click to expand...

Prove a connection between corruption and length of service.

This proves my point that most voters do not pay attention to politics and why we need term limits in the first place.This is why this country has the problems it has. So it is idiotic to say "if you do not like a politician then vote him out".

Click to expand...

Oh, man, sometimes when you say LOL you don't really mean it, but I really am laughing out loud when I read you say it's idiotic to say ""if you do not like a politician then vote him out." You actually said that?

Kandahar said:

Umm no. If it's that simple it would happen more often. When Congress has a 9% approval rating and a 90% incumbent reelection rate, something is wrong. Specifically, the longer legislators are in Congress, the more corrupt they become. And the more likely any particular legislator is to be seeking reelection, the easier it is to buy them off.

Click to expand...

Then simply don't re-elect them.

Congress as a whole may have a really low rating, but most voters rate THEIR congressman higher. And most re-elect them. Who the hell are you to tell them they can't?

It's not exactly difficult to find another qualified candidate of a similar political ideology. Very few members of Congress are irreplaceable. The issue has nothing to do with "losers who keep losing elections," as they would probably continue to lose elections to members of the dominant party in their district even with term limits; the issue is corruption and the culture that is created in Congress by lifetime politicians.

Click to expand...

No, it's losers who can't accept that they lost, so they try to take away the choice from the voters. Pretty simple.

If you think a congressman has been in office too long, go vote for his challenger(s) and urge other to do so.

Sounds like a perfect example of why term limits are necessary. Obviously the voters in that district wanted term limits, but if it was simple as "just vote him out of office" as you claimed, then they would have done so anyway.

Click to expand...

So they were somehow incapable of voting him out of office? They went to the ballot, pushed the button next to his name because they were brainwashed or all had guns to their heads?

No, what that election said was the voters didn't really want term limits. Or didn't actually understand what they were getting.

For those in favor of term limits for president but not for congress explain Why? Specifically why the exact same reasoning they gives to say its dumb to have them for congress don't apply to the Presidency?

Okay, guys, both of you have made the quite amazing claim that the voters are somehow incapable of getting rid of a politician by simply voting him out of office. How can you make such a ridiculous claim? Explain it please. How are the voters going to the polls and voting for someone they don't want? Is it the work of an evil wizard? Or aliens with a special laser beam?

Do I support term limits? With a vengence.

*cough*

OK, but I think I really do support them because it will help prevent corruption of the individual. In that, a career politician will have his hand in everything, can set up things and run things, gets all the perks. I think it would be harder to do so (not impossible...in fact it would still certainly happen, but hopefully to a lesser degree) if we forced rotation of people through there. There's plenty of people capable of the job, it's not like we're going to run out of qualified jerks.

I wonder if we should have "term limits" on political parties too.

But in all honesty, one amendment I think would be good would be one to give the People a way to remove SCOTUS justices. Every election cycle...or every 4....no more than 6; the Justices come up for a confidence vote. If 85% of Americans vote no confidence, then that justice is removed. The new justice will be appointed as normal. This keeps removal of justices out of the hands of Legislature and Executive, for the founders were wise is isolating them from the Judiciary. But it does leave them in the hands of The People. A supermajority, necessarily must be a supermajority. 85% could be argued to be too low, that it should be like 88-90.

Redress said:

Easy answer: no. Politicians should not limit my choices in politicians.

Click to expand...

They already do.

Ikari said:

OK, but I think I really do support them because it will help prevent corruption of the individual. In that, a career politician will have his hand in everything, can set up things and run things, gets all the perks.

Click to expand...

So you think your view should overrule the will of a majority of voters?

Ikari said:

They already do.

Click to expand...

How do they do that?

misterman said:

So you think your view should overrule the will of a majority of voters?

Click to expand...

So you are in favor if removing term limits for presidents?

Zyphlin said:

So you are in favor if removing term limits for presidents?

Click to expand...

Answer my question first please.

misterman said:

Answer my question first please.

Click to expand...

What question? You didn't ask me one

However if you're referring to the one you made to James and khandahar who are actually arguing a particular position (unlike me) I could give it a wager.

Basic political science knowledge would inform you that historically a noticeable and predictable trend of incumbents having a significant advantage is present in our system. This occurs due to a number of reasons. First, an encumbant already has a preset foundation of which to begin to mount a campaign; in logistics, contacts, and message. They've ran a campaign before, already got donors before, already have established themselves in the states politics. Money is a huge factor and incumbents routinely bring in more than challengers.

Next, simple name recognition. Being in a position for 2 / 6 years and having already campaigned once instantly raises the individual's name recognition in the state because they are a know figure. Name recognition is big in elections for your "average" voter who is not routinely up to date with politics. Its why you see the plethora of signs every election season. The more people know your name and it sticks with them the better chance they may be inclined to vote your direction as the most memorable candidate.

Those are just two right off that are very basic level political science reasoning behind the very real and studied phenomena of incumbents typically having a significant advantage in elections,

Does that mean we should have term limits? Well, thats what's being discussed here. However, that is part of the answer to the question "why don't they just vote them out"

Zyphlin said:

What question? You didn't ask me one

Click to expand...

I did ask a question though.

I want to know, from anyone who supports term limits, why they think they are justified in overturning the will of the voters. Anyone?

misterman said:

So you think your view should overrule the will of a majority of voters?

Click to expand...

I think my views tend to side on the restriction of government and its abilities.

Ikari said:

I think my views tend to side on the restriction of government and its abilities.

Click to expand...

Don't dodge.

You want to overrule the voters because you don't like their choices. There's nothing more anti-democratic than that. Who do you think you are?

misterman said:

How do they do that?

Click to expand...

You have to ask how the Republocrats do that? The system is not entirely open anymore; it's well restricted. They already tell us that the Republocrats are who you have to vote for. Third parties cannot get any exposure, they can't be invited to debates too often. Particularly on the national level. Finance contribution laws and such are also well set up for the proliferation of the Republocrats. McCain/Feingold is well set up to do this. It wasn't called the incumbent protection act for nothing. It's all restricted. You come from the proper party, or don't bother showing up. Even within the parties, it's controlled, particularly at a national level.

They don't do that? HA! The Republocrats have refined and worked the system into a teeter-totter of power. There's no real political competition left, and that's not a good thing.