Cruz to introduce bill to reduce congress term limits.

[Elegiac]

A politician's job is not to make decisions. A politician's job is to represent the will of their electorate.

There is a whole host of instances in which 'the will of the electorate' is something worth ignoring. Brexit is one such example.

Part of the issue with the present crop of American politicians is there is nary a leader to be found amongst them. It's erred too far on the side of the delegate rather than the trustee.

[Wells]

A politician's job is not to make decisions

ow.

Representative Democracy is more than just a lever pull once removed.

This is the weirdest fucking thing in American politics, people who think we're better off with politicians who don't have any experience governing.

- - - Updated - - -

"Experience is actually bad" is the hottest of takes.

[Elegiac]

Term limits significantly increase the cost of lobbying. The money invested in a political career by lobbyists have to pay off in two or three terms instead of 20-30 years. What defeats monopolies and oligopolies in practice is to raise the cost of retaining the market advantage until that cost outweighs the gains of said advantage and it logically applies to lobbies as well. Moreover term limits mean that politics are not a career choice but a diversion; it funnels professionals and managers into politics as short term career enrichment projects rather than fulltime careers. It's a solid idea imo.

So basically; the only people that can afford to lobby are the richest, biggest parties, and the American government becomes entirely staffed by people who have not one iota of experience in government.

I'm curious as to where the US derives these batshit myths from.

Oh, wait. The Founders' hard-on for Republican Rome.

[Wells]

Term limits significantly increase the cost of lobbying. The money invested in a political career by lobbyists have to pay off in two or three terms instead of 20-30 years. What defeats monopolies and oligopolies in practice is to raise the cost of retaining the market advantage until that cost outweighs the gains of said advantage and it logically applies to lobbies as well. Moreover term limits mean that politics are not a career choice but a diversion; it funnels professionals and managers into politics as short term career enrichment projects rather than fulltime careers. It's a solid idea imo.

Yeah.....making lobbying more expensive doesn't help anyone. Goldman Sachs has deep pockets. Some random AIDS charity or whatever doesn't.

[Garnier Fructis]

I have a feeling that many of the people in this thread who are disagreeing with this move are doing so simply because it was put forward by Cruz.

No.

And surely, you can come up with some hand-waving reasons as to why this would be a negative change - I would remind you that politicians are not experts in science, philosophy, or law, but rather are experts in politics, which has significantly less material value than any of the aforementioned sets of expertise.

Their replacements definitely aren't going to be experts. They're just less experienced and more ideologically pure (read: dangerous).

[Underverse]

You didn't like H.R. 4298 Vietnam Helicopter Crew Memorial Act?

Oh um, I guess that one's okay? Doesn't seem to be super high impact

[Underverse]

No.



Their replacements definitely aren't going to be experts. They're just less experienced and more ideologically pure (read: dangerous).

So you're saying we should have higher age restrictions? Because I'm sure you're aware that a career politician can be replaced by someone young or old as it is, so nothing is changing there.

Or are you saying that being a politician tempers your position in ways that doing other things as a profession cannot? I'm not sure I buy this; there are a bunch of congressional politicians that seem pretty radical, at least in the views they outwardly express.

You have a bunch of associations to make before asserting things like 'people who aren't career politicians are ideological purists, unlike all career politicians'.

- - - Updated - - -

ow.

Representative Democracy is more than just a lever pull once removed.

This is the weirdest fucking thing in American politics, people who think we're better off with politicians who don't have any experience governing.

- - - Updated - - -

"Experience is actually bad" is the hottest of takes.

LOL

Okay, so for anyone else reading this who wants context for the post he quoted, here it is:

A politician's job is not to make decisions. A politician's job is to represent the will of their electorate. As a politician becomes better at their job, they become better at deceiving their electorate to make it seem like they're getting things done, while in reality they're accomplishing nothing at all.

Wells: taking the first 8 words of my post out of context is a slimy move at best and shows me that you really have no argument here. Maybe you should take a break, stop grasping for straws.

[taliey]

The consequences of term limits is easily foreseeable and predictable.

[Underverse]

There is a whole host of instances in which 'the will of the electorate' is something worth ignoring. Brexit is one such example.

Part of the issue with the present crop of American politicians is there is nary a leader to be found amongst them. It's erred too far on the side of the delegate rather than the trustee.

I would agree with this. But this is not how our system is set up. I'm all for changing the system in more dramatic ways.

That doesn't change the truth of my post. Politicians are not supposed to be making decisions independent of their electorate. If they are, they're deceiving their electorate.

If we wanted people in power who were good at running the country, we would be a technocracy. Clearly that isn't our priority.

[Wells]

I mean, you're argument is so nonsensical that its hard to actually even talk to.

Congressmen represent their constituents and fulfill their will, that is true. But doing that still requires decision making. The people who put the Democrats in power in 2008 wanted health care reform. That doesn't mean the representatives they elected then go pull the "do the healthcare" lever on Capitol Hill.

They have to craft laws, which, you might be shocked to learn, means decision making. If the people making those decisions have experience crafting related laws they'll do a better job for the same reason experience makes you better at anything else.

Like....your position is 1 step above asking why your cat isn't a tuba.

[Garnier Fructis]

Or are you saying that being a politician tempers your position in ways that doing other things as a profession cannot? I'm not sure I buy this; there are a bunch of congressional politicians that seem pretty radical, at least in the views they outwardly express.

I'm saying this is what we saw when the far right base somehow managed to oust a bunch of career politicians.

[Deleted]

Some kind of proof ?

because the system that elects them is the same.
The reason why the current crop is corrupt is the money in the election system - New people will require just as much money to get elected and re-elected.

[Kallisto]

I generally support term limits for congress. our congress members are our directly elected representatives and a solid argument can be made that if they've been in the seat for 20+ years then they will naturally lose touch with the areas of the country they are supposed to be representing.

"but if they're losing touch with their base then wouldn't they just get voted out" in some cases perhaps, many times they remain in their seat because a) they have a lot of money behind them to run for re election and b) many people will continue to vote in the same person just because they've been there a while "if it's not broke don't fix it" sort of attitude.

I'm not saying this all of or even a majority of problems in our legislature but I do think this would be a positive step.

But maybe I shall counter that with.

What if the politician is doing a great job, representing his constituents and the nation at large in the right balance. Those that he represents also think he's doing a wonderful job. Why shouldn't they allow this person to continue their job, in which they have major experience in and have in some unknown with little to no experience take their place?

One of the last things you want is someone without experience to go up against especially when it comes to international diplomacy or politics go up against those from elsewhere who have had support and experience for maybe 10-20 years. They'd get eaten alive in the political game.

[Ealyssa]

New people will require just as much money to get elected and re-elected.

That's why you should limite terms. No re-election means less pressure when having power.

Sure it's not perfect, you still need money to campaign. But it's healthier when politicians are "freed" of working for their re-election. Obviously the less "corrupted" hey were before being elected, the greater the benefit are. But it's also up to the people to inform themselves about who they elect.

[Wells]

That's why you should limite terms. No re-election means less pressure when having power.

It also means more pressure to secure an industry job when you leave.

Anyway, two years max for Reps would be ridiculous.

[Merkava]

I support this measure. It's a necessary measure towards draining the swamp.

Drain the swamp? Have you seen what Trumps been doing? Hes been riding through the swamp handing out money. Hes filling the swamp with alligators. Jesus.

[GennGreymane]

I'll believe it when I see it.

the frog has spoken!

[Maconi]

Won't happen. DC is owned by Mitch McConnell and he's made it clear his Senate won't be entertaining the thought of term limits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/us...pull-away.html

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451...first-100-days

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell mostly made nice with Trump but also shot down or expressed little enthusiasm in some of his plans. On Trump's proposal to impose term limits on Congress, McConnell said, "It will not be on the agenda in the Senate." McConnell has been a long-standing opponent of term limits, as NPR's Susan Davis reports. "I would say we have term limits now — they're called elections."

[Sunseeker]

It wont help.
You will have the same kind of politician, and now they will just be less competent.'

By that logic, politicians should hold life terms. Because if shorter terms=less competent, longer terms=more competent, correct?

[McCulloch]

If you want new blood, vote for new blood. No point in taking away the choice from people. If I like my Representative/Senator, I'd like to be able to keep them.