Term Limits: Yes or No?

[Dave Sund]

Thought I'd throw this out here...

Would you support a Constitutional amendment to institute term limits for Senators and Congressmen? Obviously such an amendment would have to be proposed by a National Convention, and organizing such a convention would be difficult to say the least.

I'm not entirely sure where I stand here. Term limits for the presidency haven't done much to change the control of certain cliques over the party's nominations, but just think at where we'd be without term limits on GWB.

Would term limits do anything to change things? Would they reduce corporate control, or would the increase it? Would we see more Congressmen and Senators doing what's right instead of worrying about reelection? Or would the lame duck factor overwhelm their influence?

I thought this would make for an interesting discussion, particularly since there are compelling arguments for both sides.

[paineinthearse]

1. We have term limits already

They are called elections.

[Dave Sund]

4. That's a great argument in theory

But the reality is something quite different. What's the incumbency rate in Congress, something like 90%?

Term limits are also a great idea in theory, but their practicality may be questionable. For example, how can we trust Congress to make tough decisions if they aren't experienced enough to make them?

[paineinthearse]

11. I am very apprehensive with any Constitutional amendments.

Instead we need to work to pass campaign and election law reform that will fund elections publicly, not through PAC and personal campaign warchests.

[Dave Sund]

14. Absolutely

Campaign finance reform is a must. Do you think serious public financing for congressional races could have a positive impact, or do you think it would lead to abuses of the system?

[AllyCat]

2. As tempting as it sounds...

...term limits come in the form of voting the rat-bastards out of office. That way, we don't end up with a whole crew of beginners...then again, maybe beginners will give us the clean slate we might need right now!

[RC]

3. We'd have a whole crew of beginners, but

all of the old lobbyists and their tricks. Things would get worse.

[brainshrub]

5. Yes. I think they are a great idea.

I also wish that we would switch to instant run-off voting and have a parliament instead of a congress.

I also want a billion dollars and pet flying money.

[AntiCoup2K4]

6. I used to hate the idea of term limits

But with all these corporate whores now occupying both houses, something must be done. Mary Landrieu does not deserve a Senate seat, period. And there are other names I could mention, who may have done the right thing yesterday, but have abdicated their responsibility on other issues. Bankruptcy bill, Rice, Gonzales, etc.

Maybe cleaning house every few years isn't such a bad idea.

[Withywindle]

7. No, I don't think so...

Experience is a worthwhile thing in its own right. I wouldn't want to give up the decades of knowledge, skill in negotiating, and historical context that we have with a Byrd or a Kennedy or a Conyers. Folks like that are national treasures for all the history they've lived through and what they've learned from it.

And if such a thing is going to be considered, it ought to be up to the individual states, IMO.

[Dave Sund]

9. Interesting point

Term limits aren't explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, but would it be entirely constitutional?

[grumpy old fart]

8. Good Arguments both ways, but no good definitive answer...IMHO

[pamela]

10. No!

This would be just one more "stop-me-before-I-kill-again" law.

[woodsprite]

12. OK, how about "consecutive" term limits.

meaning you can't serve X number of terms consecutively. You have to let newbies in to begin learning how to take care of America, instead of a new member just once-in-awhile joining the good ole boys club. I don't know how elections are done now, but you could stagger elections, so no more than 1/2 the house and 1/2 the senate are replaced at one time - or even 1/3.

But with that we also have to have additional campaign finance reform, so people aren't buying their way into the place.

[MaineYooper]

13. No- look at the evidence of the effects of term limits in Maine

http://www.umaine.edu/mcsc/Research/CivVal/ME_TermLimits.htm

The authors of this book take apart the arguments that were put forward by the proponents, and show that there was not:

A) a lot of new faces
B) new ideas
C) a legislature more responsive to the public

Interestingly, they also point out that the primary fear of the opponents, more power to lobbyists, hasn't come to fruition either. Rather, they argue that there has been a dramatic shift of power to the executive branch, mostly to the govenor (who had to leave a legislature position due to term limits), but also to career bureaucrats.

The biggest problem that is cited is the loss of institutional memory within the legislature- it's not that the executive branch necessarily has better memory, but they are in the "directing" position, and are therefore taking on more power.

IMHO, term limits are a band-aid solution. They fix the symptom rather than the problem. The true problem that we have is all of the inherent advantages that incumbents have; it's not easy to fix these, but term limits don't seem to be the solution. It would be better to try to find a way to reduce the electoral advantage of the incumbents, though of course that depends on sitting politicians being willing to cede this advantage. I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to happen...

The biggest problem is that with term limits, we lose the good politicians along with the bad.

[Bridget Burke]

15. No. Let's work on election financing & honest vote counting.

Then we can vote the bastards out.

We can keep the good ones.

[adwon]

16. Ask Mexico how well it works

They had the most stringent term limits in law and enjoyed one party rule for 70 years.

Term limits are a silver bullet fallacy. The problems of influence and incumbency are a bit too complex for 'one shot, one kill.'