• 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!

Do you support term limits for congress?

Would you support term limits for congress?


  • Total voters
    21

Phantom

John Schnatter 2012
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
638
Reaction score
184
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
If you stepped into the voting booth today with a federal proposition for putting term limits on Senators and Representatives, how would you vote?

Personally I would like to see each chamber get 2 4 year terms like we currently have for POTUS.
 
Last edited:
Yes, for reasons I feel like I've stated a million times.

A few reasons.

One of them is specific to the legislature: a person's vote in Minnesota affects me here in Virginia, even though I do not get to vote for Minnesota's Congressional representation. Human nature is, people are going to want a powerful representative to make their state more powerful than the rest. The best way to do this is to keep voting people in office until they have a lot of seniority. Term limits would equalize the power in Congress.

Then there's the fact that incumbents have a huge advantage in elections, both in fund raising and in name-recognition. This is also true because a party wants to keep its power, and is afraid that tough primary competition will weaken their chances of keeping their hold. Places represented by the majority party have significantly higher incumbency rates than other places.
 
I vote yes, but it would be a much longer term. These Senators tottering around is not a good idea.

Please! Someone! Retire Robert Byrd!
 
Yes but especially the Senate which originally was selected by the State's legislature would then have a natural limit on the term of office which now doesn't. Politicians are like fish which if left out too long begin to smell.
 
I vote no. I do not like people telling me that I cannot vote fot the person I prefer for an office. Term limits limit choice.
 
You know what I was thinking when I watched the President's speech the other night? "Wow, many people in this room look like they could keel over dead any second". Seriously, it looked like a f***ing nursing home!

Instead of grassroots movements for partisan issues, how about EVERYONE rally together in support of Term Limits, Ban on Lobbying, Ban on Gerrymandering and public campaign financing...

Once people wake up and realize that the real battle isn't left vs. right, we can finally get our politicians in line and hold them accountable.

The bitter partisan divide was created to keep the people occupied on watching Washington's right hand so we couldn't see what the left hand is doing.

It's not left vs. right, folks. It's UP vs. DOWN.

Part of the "UP" (Our elected and appointed officials) are routinely out of control; term limits are just a start. But it's a good one.
 
Last edited:
I vote no. I do not like people telling me that I cannot vote fot the person I prefer for an office. Term limits limit choice.

Quite the opposite my friend. Once an established candidate has accumulated so much wealth and power while in office, history and statistics have shown they become nearly impossible to beat; generally winning office with money from special interests, lobbyists and high-end donors to whom they serve, not you. Your choices are actually limited because no one can ever beat them in the primaries or generally election. Stats show that once a congressmen wins three times, he is more than likely in for life, unless he runs for senate, of course. Then the odds get a little harder, but not much.
 
I vote no. I do not like people telling me that I cannot vote fot the person I prefer for an office. Term limits limit choice.

You can argue incumbency itself limits choice.

I prefer the idea of term limits for Congress, but I know that its impossible to ask for, since they would have to legislate it themselves. I would also favor 1 6 year term for presidency.

Why put this country and a sitting president through a re-election bid? Let him/her do their job, without distraction of election cycles.
 
You can argue incumbency itself limits choice.

I prefer the idea of term limits for Congress, but I know that its impossible to ask for, since they would have to legislate it themselves. I would also favor 1 6 year term for presidency.

Why put this country and a sitting president through a re-election bid? Let him/her do their job, without distraction of election cycles.

I F***ing hate Lesnar, but I love your answer.
 
The problem with lack of term limits is that once a politician is in office too long, they think they own the place. That the people are there to serve them. That is by far the grosses perversion of democracy. The incumbency rate and gerrymandering only serve to reinforce this.

I'd for a single 6 year presidency like WI, as it allows the president to make unpopular, but necessary decisions. And reps should have no more then four 2 year terms and senators no more than two 4 year terms.
 
If you stepped into the voting booth today with a federal proposition for putting term limits on Senators and Representatives, how would you vote?

Personally I would like to see each chamber get 2 4 year terms like we currently have for POTUS.

I voted yes. We have term limits for presidents so why shouldn't the same thing apply to those in other political offices?
 
Quite the opposite my friend. Once an established candidate has accumulated so much wealth and power while in office, history and statistics have shown they become nearly impossible to beat; generally winning office with money from special interests, lobbyists and high-end donors to whom they serve, not you. Your choices are actually limited because no one can ever beat them in the primaries or generally election. Stats show that once a congressmen wins three times, he is more than likely in for life, unless he runs for senate, of course. Then the odds get a little harder, but not much.

I have no problem with that. That is the choice of the people, and I see no reason to override the will of the people.
 
I have no problem with that. That is the choice of the people, and I see no reason to override the will of the people.

It's not the will of the people. Exit polls show that most folks vote party line...regardless of whose name is in the box next to "D" or "R". If that's the case then it debunks your theory of choice. That's what the primary is for. The fact is that incumbents have a 30 to 1 advantage of winning primaries. Isn't it pompous to assert that NO ONE in an entire voting district is qualified to be Representative except one person?

You are a liberal, you should get the concepts of fairness and opportunity...
 
It's not the will of the people. Exit polls show that most folks vote party line...regardless of whose name is in the box next to "D" or "R". If that's the case then it debunks your theory of choice. That's what the primary is for. The fact is that incumbents have a 30 to 1 advantage of winning primaries. Isn't it pompous to assert that NO ONE in an entire voting district is qualified to be Representative except one person?

You are a liberal, you should get the concepts of fairness and opportunity...

If people vote party line, that is their right and their choice. Why do you think you know better? I think every one in a district who legally qualifies should be able to run, including the incumbent.
 
If people vote party line, that is their right and their choice. Why do you think you know better? I think every one in a district who legally qualifies should be able to run, including the incumbent.

I'm talking about how it is. You are talking about how it should be.

Again...realism vs. idealism.

So you think that there should be no term limits for POTUS, either?

Bet you'd feel different if Bush just got a third term.
 
I'm talking about how it is. You are talking about how it should be.

Again...realism vs. idealism.

So you think that there should be no term limits for POTUS, either?

Bet you'd feel different if Bush just got a third term.

No, I am talking exactly how it is. People now can choose who they want to vote for, whether you or I like it. I think that is exactly the way it should be.

I think it should be this way for POTUS, but since the term limits are constitutionally mandated, don't think it is worth the effort to fight it.
 
No, I am talking exactly how it is. People now can choose who they want to vote for, whether you or I like it. I think that is exactly the way it should be.

I think it should be this way for POTUS, but since the term limits are constitutionally mandated, don't think it is worth the effort to fight it.

No you aren't being realistic. Not just anyone can defeat an incumbent. 99% of the time, the incumbent has more money and wins the primary. Now, if a challenger of a different party wins the general, then OK. But, statistically it gets less likely as time goes on and said incumbent never loses.

Money. That is what it takes. Understand it. Accept it.

There are probably some individuals who can maintain integrity throughout extremely long careers in the Senate or House; but they are few. Keep the turn-over fast and furious and your corruption lowers and production increases. Unless you are a fan of corruption, no representation and no productivity.

Not to mention, the longer the politican is in Washington, the less they are at HOME and they less they understand the issues in their states and districts.
 
No you aren't being realistic. Not just anyone can defeat an incumbent. 99% of the time, the incumbent has more money and wins the primary. Now, if a challenger of a different party wins the general, then OK. But, statistically it gets less likely as time goes on and said incumbent never loses.

Money. That is what it takes. Understand it. Accept it.

There are probably some individuals who can maintain integrity throughout extremely long careers in the Senate or House; but they are few. Keep the turn-over fast and furious and your corruption lowers and production increases. Unless you are a fan of corruption, no representation and no productivity.

Not to mention, the longer the politican is in Washington, the less they are at HOME and they less they understand the issues in their states and districts.

It takes 1 more vote than any one else gets to win an election. Money is good for getting your message out, but I can point to countless examples of the candidate with more money losing. I am sorry, but if the people want the incumbent to win, who are you or I to tell them no? That is the reality of what these discussions are, people who don't like the incumbent winning, and instead of doing what it takes to get another guy to win, they try and take away our choices, so the candidate they find fitting wins. Me, I prefer the system of giving people maximum choice, and if they choose in a way I dislike...oh well, that is the system.

By the way, there are better ways of controlling corruption in Washington than term limits, which would have limited impact in my opinion.
 
Yeah, I support this along with several other potential reforms to make congress more responsive and accountable.

1. Term limits for Congress. Democracy works best when we have citizen legislators, not a nearly permanent ruling class.

2. All campaigns are publicly financed. No private donations of any kind are allowed. It won't end influence peddling, but it will certainly help curtail it.

3. Dramatically decrease the number of constituants per congressional district. Probably to about 100K people per district. The smaller the constituancy, the more individual voters matter.

4. Congressional districts should be drawn up by an unbiased compter program. End gerrymandering!

5. Use ranked choice voting to eliminate "wasted vote syndrome" for third parties.

6. Make Congress subject to voter recall, similar to what California has for its governor.
 
No, for reasons I have said many times and reasons the Redress has restated.
 
No, for reasons I have said many times and reasons the Redress has restated.

Yes, but look at the congressional approval rating and the recidivism rate. It's insanely ironic.
 
Yes, but look at the congressional approval rating and the recidivism rate. It's insanely ironic.

No disagreements there. I just do not want my choices taken away from me on the occasion that we actually get someone good in office.
 
Back
Top Bottom