• 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
Because no one ever thinks THEIR congressman is part of the problem. It's the 434 other guys, and the stupid voters from those other districts.

So?

That doesn't make any sense. You're saying they vote for people with more name recognition because they like people with more name recognition, and not because they, umm, recognize their name?

No, you are.

They would still be free to vote for a politician with identical political views.

Sorry, but that's not good enough. You're still taking away a choice. People with identical political views are not just interchangable. These are individuals we're talking about, with unique qualities.
 
They'll prevent them from voting the SAME stupid person into office repeatedly, which will at least make it more likely that they'll get a smart person occasionally. ;)

Why do you think you are smarter than the voters? What makes you qualified to tell them who they can't vote for?
 
There is not a single argument for term limits that doesn't boil down to "the voters should lose their choice because I think they make the wrong choices." It's anti-democracy.
 
There is not a single argument for term limits that doesn't boil down to "the voters should lose their choice because I think they make the wrong choices." It's anti-democracy.

I'm starting to wonder if term limits for the president are necessary.
 
Yet a majority of voters elect them. Apparently they think otherwise. Who are you to override their decision?

It's not like I'm overthrowing the government, making myself dictator, and decreeing that there shall be term limits for all congressmen. I suggested a constitutional amendment. :roll:
 
I'm starting to wonder if term limits for the president are necessary.

Took you long enough!

Yeah, those suck too. You'll notice they weren't in the original Constitution either. But I can see making an exception when there is enormous power in one single office.
 
It's not like I'm overthrowing the government, making myself dictator, and decreeing that there shall be term limits for all congressmen. I suggested a constitutional amendment. :roll:

So? Why should there be an amendment saying I can't vote for who I want to because someone else doesn't like it?

BTW, did you know that in the 90s when term limits was a big thing, there were some districts where the voters actually voted for term limits while at the same time re-electing a congressman who was already past the term limit they voted for?
 
Why do you think you are smarter than the voters?

Because I am. ;)

misterman said:
What makes you qualified to tell them who they can't vote for?

Nothing makes me personally qualified. I suggested a constitutional amendment to change the process. Would you agree that the Constitution is qualified to do that?
 
misterman: You do realize that were a term limit Constitutional amendment to pass, it would have to do so... democratically?
 
There is not a single argument for term limits that doesn't boil down to "the voters should lose their choice because I think they make the wrong choices." It's anti-democracy.

Then why have any limitations on governmental power at all? What if the voters want to elect a president who promises to censor the press, detain people without trial, ignore the Supreme Court, and reinstate slavery? Wouldn't it be anti-democratic to point out that the Constitution doesn't allow those things, if that's what the voters want? :confused:
 
Because I am. ;)



Nothing makes me personally qualified. I suggested a constitutional amendment to change the process. Would you agree that the Constitution is qualified to do that?

No.

Just like I wouldn't support a Constitutional amendment abolishing elections altogether, for instance. Just because it's in the Constitution doesn't make it a good idea.
 
So? Why should there be an amendment saying I can't vote for who I want to because someone else doesn't like it?

Why should the Constitution say the democratically-elected president can't censor the press just because someone else doesn't like it?

misterman said:
BTW, did you know that in the 90s when term limits was a big thing, there were some districts where the voters actually voted for term limits while at the same time re-electing a congressman who was already past the term limit they voted for?

And what conclusion do you draw from that?
 
Why should the Constitution say the democratically-elected president can't censor the press just because someone else doesn't like it?

And sometimes there are good things in the Constitution.

Freedom of speech is democratic. So are free elections. They fit well together, don't you think?

And what conclusion do you draw from that?

That term limits are a pointless fad. Even the voters who say they want them don't really want them.
 
People are only interested in term limits because they don't want the OTHER state's representative to get re-elected.

I am not interested in term limits for Congress because I believe it weakens the power of the Congress relative to the President. I believe that power should be flowing the other way. The Presidency is too powerful now as it is.
 
And sometimes there are good things in the Constitution.

Freedom of speech is democratic. So are free elections. They fit well together, don't you think?

I see. So you're fine with substituting your judgment for the voters' judgment if they're going to elect a president who will censor the press. It's not anti-democratic when YOU do it. ;)

misterman said:
That term limits are a pointless fad. Even the voters who say they want them don't really want them.

Really. Because the conclusion I drew from that little anecdote was that voters (whose rights you are supposedly arguing on behalf of) are broadly supportive of term limits, but still can't figure out how to vote their own guy out of office. Which perfectly illustrates why term limits are necessary.
 
Last edited:
People are only interested in term limits because they don't want the OTHER state's representative to get re-elected.

I am not interested in term limits for Congress because I believe it weakens the power of the Congress relative to the President. I believe that power should be flowing the other way. The Presidency is too powerful now as it is.

All excellent points.
 
Took you long enough!

Yeah, those suck too. You'll notice they weren't in the original Constitution either. But I can see making an exception when there is enormous power in one single office.

I think if we somehow reformed campaign laws to the point where incumbency/power/corruption/whatever had no effect, and were able to make elections perfectly fair and balanced, presidential term limits would be unecessary.

Is that even possible?
 
I see. So you're fine with substituting your judgment for the voters' judgment if they're going to elect a president who will censor the press. It's not anti-democratic when YOU do it. ;)

Nice try. But freedom of speech limits the power of the government, not the people.

Really. Because the conclusion I drew from that little anecdote was that voters (whose rights you are supposedly arguing on behalf of) are broadly supportive of term limits, but still can't figure out how to vote their own guy out of office. Which perfectly illustrates why term limits are necessary.

Oh. My. God.

They couldn't figure out how to vote him out of office? They were too stupid and confused to simply push the button for his opponent instead? Did you really just say that?
 
All excellent points.

As I understand it, there is supposed to be a 3-way balance of power between the Presidency, Congress, and the Court system.
 
I think if we somehow reformed campaign laws to the point where incumbency/power/corruption/whatever had no effect, and were able to make elections perfectly fair and balanced, presidential term limits would be unecessary.

Is that even possible?

Incumbency and power are fine. Nothing wrong with those. If the voters want to take those things into consideration, that's their right.

Corruption is already illegal.

I agree that elections could be improved. They shouldn't cost so much, and we should try to limit gerrymandering. Term limits is like curing a splinter by cutting off your finger.
 
As I understand it, there is supposed to be a 3-way balance of power between the Presidency, Congress, and the Court system.

Sure (though not necessarily equal power). Over the years, the President has gained enormous power at the expense of Congress.
 
Nice try. But freedom of speech limits the power of the government, not the people.

Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that you're substituting your judgment (i.e. freedom of speech is good) for the voters' judgment (i.e. freedom of speech is bad) in our little hypothetical example. That's anti-democratic, but most of us don't lose much sleep over it. So I question why you would accuse me of being anti-democratic for wanting to substitute my judgment (i.e. term limits are good) for the voters' judgment (i.e. we like Incumbency Bob).

I'm hard-pressed to find any meaningful distinction there in terms of ignoring the voters' choice, except that you like freedom of speech and you don't like term limits.

misterman said:
Oh. My. God.

They couldn't figure out how to vote him out of office? They were too stupid and confused to simply push the button for his opponent instead? Did you really just say that?

Yep. When Congress has a 95% incumbency rate and a 25% approval rate, something is wrong with the system.
 
Last edited:
Sure (though not necessarily equal power). Over the years, the President has gained enormous power at the expense of Congress.

Perhaps better to say there is supposed to be a 3-way "struggle" for power between the Presidency, Congress, and the Court system?
 
Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that you're substituting your judgment (i.e. freedom of speech is good) for the voters' judgment (i.e. freedom of speech is bad) in our little hypothetical example.

That's not the voter's judgement, it's the government's. And it results in an increase in the power and rights of the people, not a decrease.

That's anti-democratic, but most of us don't lose much sleep over it. So I question why you would accuse me of being anti-democratic for wanting to substitute my judgment (i.e. term limits are good) for the voters' judgment (i.e. we like Incumbency Bob).

Fine, I won't call it anti-democratic. I'll call it taking away part of the rights of voters.

I'm hard-pressed to find any meaningful distinction there in terms of ignoring the voters' choice, except that you like freedom of speech and you don't like term limits.

See above. It's pretty clear.

Yep. When Congress has a 95% incumbency rate and a 25% approval rate, something is wrong with the system.

As someone noted above, everyone loves their congressman and hates everyone else's. Incumbency rate is determined by voters in each district; while approval rate is about the whole Congress.
 
As someone noted above, everyone loves their congressman and hates everyone else's. Incumbency rate is determined by voters in each district; while approval rate is about the whole Congress.

And who makes laws, one specific Congressman, or all of Congress?

(The latter)
 
Back
Top Bottom