Term Limits on Members of Congress

[Debased]

Yes or No?

From a personal stand point I am all for it. One problem is as of the last decade our government has become so polarized that little is getting accomplished, little is being done to benefit our future and our lives today. The problem is congressmen have to prove to the people they're the most noble to their cause, destroying the essence of democracy. Compromise.

The second issue is without a doubt corruption. It happens far more than we are aware because most forms of corruption aren't illegal, we only hear the incidents that are. When a congressman is in office long enough the lobbyist go after them, and lobbyist are the true plague on our society. The wealthiest and most influential among us pushing their agendas by controlling our congressmen and women. A lot could be said about corruption in Washington but that isn't this posts focus.

Sadly a lot of honorable congressmen will lose out but it's for the good of the system. We cannot remain stagnant in Washington the world is pulling away and millions are suffering at home. Many of the great democracy's of the past imposed term-limits on their respective governing bodies, why aren't we?

[Wells]

Nope. Doesn't actually solve any of the problems. Bringing in new guys every couple terms just means new guys being bought by corporate interests every couple terms.

Want to deal with the corruption and disconnect? Fix campaign financing and the revolving door. As for polarization, there's some interesting data showing polarization correlates with income disparity, which is usually caused by a poor economy. I'll see what I can find.

[Reinhard von Lohengramm]

Considering some of them are dinosaurs (one congressman who died in 2010 had been in congress since eisenhower....)
ya

[Ironhorn]

Sadly a lot of honorable congressmen will lose out

video snip; infracted.

But yeah term limits would be a step in the right direction but congress would have to vote on it.....not gonna happen.

[Eisaderfrau]

Yes. "Life" terms were never what the founders intended. The whole idea of "career" politicians is one of the problems with the country. Term limits is no where near enough to fix all the issues, but it's a start.

[Debased]

Nope. Doesn't actually solve any of the problems. Bringing in new guys every couple terms just means new guys being bought by corporate interests every couple terms.

Want to deal with the corruption and disconnect? Fix campaign financing and the revolving door. As for polarization, there's some interesting data showing polarization correlates with income disparity, which is usually caused by a poor economy. I'll see what I can find.

I didn't say it would solve the problem but it would certainly help. When members of congress are limited by terms they will be more likely to have greater interest in their voters than that of the their wallets, we'll still have bad apples but rather a couple than bushel am I right?

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Nope. Doesn't actually solve any of the problems. Bringing in new guys every couple terms just means new guys being bought by corporate interests every couple terms.

Want to deal with the corruption and disconnect? Fix campaign financing and the revolving door. As for polarization, there's some interesting data showing polarization correlates with income disparity, which is usually caused by a poor economy. I'll see what I can find.

It would help mitigate the problem of some congressman living through to a different age where they understand very little of what's actually going on in regards to many of the bills they're making decisions on. It doesn't have to be a two-term limit like the President, but you shouldn't be able to last as long as many of them. 20 years is plenty.

[Debased]

But yeah term limits would be a step in the right direction but congress would have to vote on it.....not gonna happen.

Not entirely true, it would be a process but it is certainly possible within a decade time. The issue is getting the people to push back, if congressmen propose this issue (a few are/did) nobody inside the system will listen.

[Wells]

On top of that, term limits are fairly anti democratic. If the voters want Senator X for another term then why not? Arbitrarily saying "this person is no longer eligible no matter what" is silly. I'm willing to allow exceptions for the Presidency though I suppose since the amount of power behind a single person is much much greater.

[araine]

It have nothing to do with the fact that big business such as ALEC buys the legislation already as is. That is what needs to be fixed term limits are irrelevant at best in this regard on how out of touch with the 99% the congress is. If anything it could mean even worse problems down the road for we the people since it will be easier to get rid of truly good guys this way. You know the guys that dont act like they are the wh0re to the Koch brothers at every turn.

[Wells]

It would help mitigate the problem of some congressman living through to a different age where they understand very little of what's actually going on in regards to many of the bills they're making decisions on. It doesn't have to be a two-term limit like the President, but you shouldn't be able to last as long as many of them. 20 years is plenty.

If the electorate feels a congressman is no longer in touch with them then they can vote him out. Don't need a law arbitrarily telling them they can't have him anymore.

I didn't say it would solve the problem but it would certainly help. When members of congress are limited by terms they will be more likely to have greater interest in their voters than that of the their wallets, we'll still have bad apples but rather a couple than bushel am I right?

If anything it will make it worse. The revolving door just spins faster, and you'll have congressmen working even more for corporate interests because they know they're going to need that cushy position that much sooner.

[mistuhbull]

Term limits and longer terms kthx

[Debased]

@Wells

The problem is people don't vote, people don't seem to care. Yet they're the ones to suffer. Members of Congress know this and exploit it, they appease to their small group of voters for office and it quickly becomes a given. Imposing term-limits is far more effective and realistic than trying to get 90% of the population voting for congress.

[Wells]

The president has term limits, why should the congress get special snowflake priviledges?

The president is essentially an entire branch of government. Each Congressman is less than 1%.

Even worse than the congress is the supreme court. Lifetime appointments with the power to have the final say on everything?

Theoretically its to keep them apolitical. Electing judges can get you in a sticky position. If you have a problem with the Justices take it up with the people who approve them. There's no reason someone like Scalia should have been approved.

[kleinlax21]

It would help mitigate the problem of some congressman living through to a different age where they understand very little of what's actually going on in regards to many of the bills they're making decisions on. It doesn't have to be a two-term limit like the President, but you shouldn't be able to last as long as many of them. 20 years is plenty.

I agree. What really strikes me as troubling, especially from a constitutional standpoint, is some Senators and Congressmen have been in office for excess of 30, even 40 years in some cases. Allowing somebody such access and influence over government doesn't doesn't sit right me.

On the other hand, one Congressmen's influence over government is staggeringly small. They, on a per individual basis, hold far less power than a Supreme Court Justice, or even a secretarial position like the Secretary of Defense, Treasury, etc. But personally, I believe term limits can only help preserve freedom.

[Wells]

@Wells

The problem is people don't vote, people don't seem to care. Yet they're the ones to suffer. Members of Congress know this and exploit it, they appease to their small group of voters for office and it quickly becomes a given. Imposing term-limits is far more effective and realistic than trying to get 90% of the population voting for congress.

Fix campaign financing so that the public doesn't feel like politicians are being bought and sold and you'll see more voters. Improved faith in the system improves participation.

[Debased]

The president has term limits, why should the congress get special snowflake priviledges? Two terms and you are out.

Even worse than the congress is the supreme court. Lifetime appointments with the power to have the final say on everything? They need term limits more than the other two branches combined.

The supreme court's power is actually quire ridiculous, all the major legislation passes through them (essentially at least) and they have the final say. While surely knowledgeable the justices decisions are largely based on personal opinion. Imagine if there were a few more prejudice justices in 1964, where would we be today?

[Wells]

The supreme court's power is actually quire ridiculous, all the major legislation passes through them

Not really. Legislation only goes through them if it works its way that high up the court system and they agree to hear it.

[Debased]

Fix campaign financing so that the public doesn't feel like politicians are being bought and sold and you'll see more voters. Improved faith in the system improves participation.

I heard some disgusting statistic the other day, it was something like 8 or 9 out of 10 people cannot name the speaker of the house or the chief justice.

[kleinlax21]

The president is essentially an entire branch of government. Each Congressman is less than 1%.


Theoretically its to keep them apolitical. Electing judges can get you in a sticky position. If you have a problem with the Justices take it up with the people who approve them.

Nice, you touched on both of my points and articulated them in a fine manner. It's important to realize the lack of power a singular member of congress possesses. Supreme Court justices were meant to reside "above the politics", if you will, so the founders removed the fear of re-election that could impact their interpretations of the Constitution.