Term Limits in Congress? (1 Viewer)

[tom22406]

Always hear this idea kicked around from time to time and wonder where each of you stand on this.

Opponents of Term LimitsCritics in the term limit debate claim that they can be arbitrary and end up preventing the best person for a job from serving in it; at times, experience is more important than fresh perspectives. Constant transition in leadership can stall legislation and public works projects before anyone benefits from them. In fact, over the history of the United States, term limits have, at times, been relaxed in order to allow a particularly strong leader to stay in power in a crisis situation, as in the case of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Proponents of Term LimitsProponents in the term limit debate argue that they ensure a wider range of perspectives in government and prevent power from being consolidated in one person, which could easily happen due to the popularity or privilege of a particular individual. Term limits offer an automatic check on consolidation of power.

 

[DiStefano]

One and done. Perhaps it can reduce the incestuous relationship, plus the revolving door between Congress and interest groups, whether Wall Street or energy companies.

 

[tom22406]

Arguments for Term Limits

• With term limits in place, Congress will be more responsible toward their constituents because they will soon be constituents themselves. They will have to live under the laws they have created while in office.
• Members of Congress will have less time in office to develop financially beneficial commitments to lobbyists and other special interest groups, thereby undermining the threat of lobbyists being a primary influence on legislation.
• Since the time of the Founding Fathers, a general consensus states that people, when given power, will eventually be corrupted by it. If Congress has term limits in place, their power will also be limited. Candidates will be more likely to run for the purpose of serving the people, and they would have to leave office before corruption dominates their decisions.
• Congress is heavily entrenched in partisan politics, resulting in gridlock when trying to pass any legislation. If term limits were enacted, toeing the party line would be less important, as the need for re-election and holding onto party seats would no longer be the driving force behind most legislative decisions. Congress would have an easier time passing the legislation that would make a positive difference for the nation.
• Money is a major factor in who will win an election. Incumbents have the benefit of the profits they made while in power – plus the backing of their party, contributing organizations and special interests – to get re-elected. However, these wealthy incumbents are often not the best person for the job, as they are so far-removed from the daily realities of the American people. A middle class person who better understands the problems facing the average citizen is highly unlikely to get elected over a wealthy incumbent. Term limits will help to eliminate the shady, profitable relationships between members of Congress and special interest groups, and therefore reduce the wealth gap between candidates. In turn, more qualified people will have a real opportunity to win elections.
• Within Congress, most legislation is written by a committee that handles a specific duty or topic. Committee appointments can be very prized positions for the power, influence and financial backing that can be attained. These positions are often assigned based on political favors and a willingness to support causes or projects. Therefore, career politicians who have formed the most self-serving relationships can often be given the most power in Congress. Term limits would work to stop this cycle of political reward and power abuse. Committee assignments would be determined by merit and expertise, resulting in fair and informed decisions.

The Arguments Against Term LimitsCareer politicians should be valued for their experience. If we regularly fill a Congressional office with a newcomer, we will lose the valuable experience on-the-job that person can offer in government.

• On occasion, there may be a member of Congress that has fought for his constituents and resisted the corrupt system of power abuse that is considered normal on Capitol Hill. The Founding Fathers discussed the need for a “rotation of office.” When one’s terms are up in one office, that politician can run for another office (such as a member of the House running for Senator, Governor, etc.) and put their experience to use in other helpful ways.
• The notion that only one person – the incumbent – can do the job well is absurd. Problematically, we continue to elect the incumbent because of name recognition and party affiliation rather than a proven track record. Realistically, there is usually someone just as qualified to take over the incumbent’s office.

Term limits are not necessary because members of Congress must be regularly re-elected. If they are not doing a good job in office, we can simply vote for someone else.

• While this would happen in an ideal world, historically the incumbent is re-elected 90% of the time. The playing field is simply not level between incumbents and challenging candidates because of the ability to raise money. In 2010, the average incumbent in the House raised around $1.4 million, while the challengers averaged $166,000. In the same year, Senate incumbents averaged $9.4 million for each campaign, while challengers raised $519,000. With that incredible discrepancy, it is no surprise that the incumbent usually prevails. If a member of Congress is limited to one or two terms, the party itself and other major donors would not invest nearly as much in an incumbent, giving challengers a better chance of winning the race.

Term limits would give more power to bureaucrats and lobbyists.

• This argument is based in the notion that incoming legislators will be entirely unqualified for their jobs and will be easily led astray by staff, bureaucrats, special interests, etc. The way the system works today suggests that the real problem is in longevity of office and the complacency that can come along with it. For instance, lobbyists invest heavily in long-term relationships with sitting legislators. Congress members currently shirk many responsibilities by delegating them to bureaucratic agencies.

Term limits have the potential to greatly reduce these problems. When more Congressional races are won by challengers from outside the Beltway, this change is likely to bring new staffers with new ideas into Washington, rather than recycling the same old corrupt insiders.

Term limits are unconstitutional.

• Clearly this is not the case, as the President of the United States is limited to two terms because of a Constitutional Amendment. A 28th Amendment would be necessary to impose term limits for Congress, and that is precisely what we are seeking. Since Congress will not willingly do so on their own, it is imperative that Americans make their voice heard on this issue.

 

[tom22406]

One and done. Perhaps it can reduce the incestuous relationship, plus the revolving door between Congress and interest groups, whether Wall Street or energy companies.

I was thinking more along the lines of saying 10-12 years as a limit but would not be opposed to your idea either the more I think about it.

 

[joffer]

It could reduce stories like this

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/wealthy-divorced-donor-helped-write-controversial-child-support-bill/article_b3e3ed40-738a-52ea-bbf9-04d03cfa0e18.html

This ##### of a Congressman has since withdrawn the bill due to public pressure

http://www.wiscnews.com/pdf_c960c9d7-4804-5498-9c11-5e7e28690aab.html

Kudos to the reporter who broke the story

 

[TobiasFunke]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

 

[Rayderr]

Term limits and cut the salary in half.

 

[Rayderr]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

So you're against term limits for the presidency then?

 

[TobiasFunke]

It could reduce stories like this

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/wealthy-divorced-donor-helped-write-controversial-child-support-bill/article_b3e3ed40-738a-52ea-bbf9-04d03cfa0e18.html

This ##### of a Congressman has since withdrawn the bill due to public pressure

http://www.wiscnews.com/pdf_c960c9d7-4804-5498-9c11-5e7e28690aab.html

Kudos to the reporter who broke the story

That's a state legislator.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

So you're against term limits for the presidency then?

Yup.

 

[tom22406]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

I think this would be more of an effort to try and get away from the "career politicians" who are really only worried about what they can do to keep themselves in power or line their pockets with money.

But also see your side as well in that the people need to be the ones voting out these people and if they keep putting them in it's shame on them.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

I think this would be more of an effort to try and get away from the "career politicians" who are really only worried about what they can do to keep themselves in power or line their pockets with money.

But also see your side as well in that the people need to be the ones voting out these people and if they keep putting them in it's shame on them.

There are lots of career politicians who are an asset to the Congress and the country. Especially when it comes to certain federal matters that require years to develop expertise, like say foreign affairs/intelligence or energy or agriculture.

We have a means by which we can get away from the ones who are really only worried about what they can do to keep themselves in power or line their pockets with money. We can vote them out of office every 2 or 6 years.

 

[joffer]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

I think term limits are an effort to reduce the influence of money on politics.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

I think term limits are an effort to reduce the influence of money on politics.

You can't buy votes. All you can do is buy advertising and other campaign assets. It's up to the voters to decide whether or not they're influenced by those assets.

 

[joffer]

We have a means by which we can get away from the ones who are really only worried about what they can do to keep themselves in power or line their pockets with money. We can vote them out of office every 2 or 6 years.

But that isn't working. As your post above points out, the deck is stacked in favor of the incumbent, both in terms of money and the indifference of the electorate.Do you think not having the incumbent running in an election would cause more interest in that election from the voters?

 

[tom22406]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

I think this would be more of an effort to try and get away from the "career politicians" who are really only worried about what they can do to keep themselves in power or line their pockets with money.

But also see your side as well in that the people need to be the ones voting out these people and if they keep putting them in it's shame on them.

There are lots of career politicians who are an asset to the Congress and the country. Especially when it comes to certain federal matters that require years to develop expertise, like say foreign affairs/intelligence or energy or agriculture.

We have a means by which we can get away from the ones who are really only worried about what they can do to keep themselves in power or line their pockets with money. We can vote them out of office every 2 or 6 years.

Isn't the re-election rate for Congress somewhere around 90 percent?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

I think this would be more of an effort to try and get away from the "career politicians" who are really only worried about what they can do to keep themselves in power or line their pockets with money.

But also see your side as well in that the people need to be the ones voting out these people and if they keep putting them in it's shame on them.

There are lots of career politicians who are an asset to the Congress and the country. Especially when it comes to certain federal matters that require years to develop expertise, like say foreign affairs/intelligence or energy or agriculture.

We have a means by which we can get away from the ones who are really only worried about what they can do to keep themselves in power or line their pockets with money. We can vote them out of office every 2 or 6 years.

Isn't the re-election rate for Congress somewhere around 90 percent?

Congressmen are like lawyers. Everyone hates them collectively but loves their own. I don't think people from outside a district or state should tell voters from that district or state that they can't reelect someone they like.

 

[joffer]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

I think term limits are an effort to reduce the influence of money on politics.

You can't buy votes. All you can do is buy advertising and other campaign assets. It's up to the voters to decide whether or not they're influenced by those assets.

Not directly, but ask a politician if they can win when they are getting significantly out-spent in the campaign.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

I think term limits are an effort to reduce the influence of money on politics.

You can't buy votes. All you can do is buy advertising and other campaign assets. It's up to the voters to decide whether or not they're influenced by those assets.

Not directly, but ask a politician if they can win when they are getting significantly out-spent in the campaign.

They'd tell you it's very tough, but that's because they know that voters are easily influenced by ads and whatnot. That's the voters' prerogative IMO. If they don't like the influence of money on elections they have the power to be less influenced by it.

Also, if we want to reduce the influence of money on politics and elections,we should do it directly by legislating/amending to address the influence of money on politics and elections, not indirectly by attacking the freedom of the people to elect whoever they want to represent them.

 

[roadkill1292]

Term limits are a bandaid on the real problems with our representation system.

;peersaroundforhelpfromslapdash:

 

[joffer]

The notion that only one person the incumbent can do the job well is absurd.

If someone really believes this, he or she must have a really pessimistic view of humanity in general. There are a lot of smart people out there. The job isn't that hard. And fresh ideas are a good thing.

 

[Rayderr]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

I think term limits are an effort to reduce the influence of money on politics.

You can't buy votes. All you can do is buy advertising and other campaign assets. It's up to the voters to decide whether or not they're influenced by those assets.

Not directly, but ask a politician if they can win when they are getting significantly out-spent in the campaign.

They'd tell you it's very tough, but that's because they know that voters are easily influenced by ads and whatnot. That's the voters' prerogative IMO. If they don't like the influence of money on elections they have the power to be less influenced by it.

Also, if we want to reduce the influence of money on politics and elections,we should do it directly by legislating/amending to address the influence of money on politics and elections, not indirectly by attacking the freedom of the people to elect whoever they want to represent them.

Hey Congress, would you guys mind passing this bill which would make it harder for you to win reelection?

 

[joffer]

For the record, I'm not in favor of one term and done in the House.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

I think term limits are an effort to reduce the influence of money on politics.

You can't buy votes. All you can do is buy advertising and other campaign assets. It's up to the voters to decide whether or not they're influenced by those assets.

Not directly, but ask a politician if they can win when they are getting significantly out-spent in the campaign.

They'd tell you it's very tough, but that's because they know that voters are easily influenced by ads and whatnot. That's the voters' prerogative IMO. If they don't like the influence of money on elections they have the power to be less influenced by it.

Also, if we want to reduce the influence of money on politics and elections,we should do it directly by legislating/amending to address the influence of money on politics and elections, not indirectly by attacking the freedom of the people to elect whoever they want to represent them.

Hey Congress, would you guys mind passing this bill which would make it harder for you to win reelection?

You'd face an even bigger hurdle convincing them to pass a bill to not allow them to run at all.

 

[Rayderr]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

I think term limits are an effort to reduce the influence of money on politics.

You can't buy votes. All you can do is buy advertising and other campaign assets. It's up to the voters to decide whether or not they're influenced by those assets.

Not directly, but ask a politician if they can win when they are getting significantly out-spent in the campaign.

They'd tell you it's very tough, but that's because they know that voters are easily influenced by ads and whatnot. That's the voters' prerogative IMO. If they don't like the influence of money on elections they have the power to be less influenced by it.

Also, if we want to reduce the influence of money on politics and elections,we should do it directly by legislating/amending to address the influence of money on politics and elections, not indirectly by attacking the freedom of the people to elect whoever they want to represent them.

Hey Congress, would you guys mind passing this bill which would make it harder for you to win reelection?

You'd face an even bigger hurdle convincing them to pass a bill to not allow them to run at all.

Yup. The great flaw in our system. We've allowed it so that those in power can game the system to keep themselves in power.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The notion that only one person the incumbent can do the job well is absurd.

If someone really believes this, he or she must have a really pessimistic view of humanity in general. There are a lot of smart people out there. The job isn't that hard. And fresh ideas are a good thing.

Nobody believes that, it's a straw man argument.

I agree with every word of your post, I just don't see why it needs to be done forcibly. There's an anti-incumbent super PAC, if Americans value fresh ideas and fresh voices over experience, people can donate to that in addition to campaigning and voting against the incumbent in their own state or district.

 

[CBusAlex]

One and done. Perhaps it can reduce the incestuous relationship, plus the revolving door between Congress and interest groups, whether Wall Street or energy companies.

This seems like it would have the opposite affect of what you're looking for. With a one-term limit, Congressmen would have no incentive to care about the voters and would only be accountable to those special interest groups with whom they'd be seeking a job in 2-6 years.

 

[joffer]

The notion that only one person the incumbent can do the job well is absurd.

If someone really believes this, he or she must have a really pessimistic view of humanity in general. There are a lot of smart people out there. The job isn't that hard. And fresh ideas are a good thing.

Nobody believes that, it's a straw man argument.

I agree with every word of your post, I just don't see why it needs to be done forcibly. There's an anti-incumbent super PAC, if Americans value fresh ideas and fresh voices over experience, people can donate to that in addition to campaigning and voting against the incumbent in their own state or district.

I admire your optimism, or dare I say idealism. I wish I still had it.

 

[joffer]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

I think term limits are an effort to reduce the influence of money on politics.

You can't buy votes. All you can do is buy advertising and other campaign assets. It's up to the voters to decide whether or not they're influenced by those assets.

Not directly, but ask a politician if they can win when they are getting significantly out-spent in the campaign.

They'd tell you it's very tough, but that's because they know that voters are easily influenced by ads and whatnot. That's the voters' prerogative IMO. If they don't like the influence of money on elections they have the power to be less influenced by it.

Also, if we want to reduce the influence of money on politics and elections,we should do it directly by legislating/amending to address the influence of money on politics and elections, not indirectly by attacking the freedom of the people to elect whoever they want to represent them.

Hey Congress, would you guys mind passing this bill which would make it harder for you to win reelection?

You'd face an even bigger hurdle convincing them to pass a bill to not allow them to run at all.

Agree. Although you have to admit it would be a much simpler law to write.

 

[tom22406]

The notion that only one person the incumbent can do the job well is absurd.

If someone really believes this, he or she must have a really pessimistic view of humanity in general. There are a lot of smart people out there. The job isn't that hard. And fresh ideas are a good thing.

Nobody believes that, it's a straw man argument.

I agree with every word of your post, I just don't see why it needs to be done forcibly. There's an anti-incumbent super PAC, if Americans value fresh ideas and fresh voices over experience, people can donate to that in addition to campaigning and voting against the incumbent in their own state or district.

I admire your optimism, or dare I say idealism. I wish I still had it.

Was thinking the same thing.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

One and done is an awful idea.

 

[Henry Ford]

As long as we don't have lifetime pensions and free insurance for them, I could be convinced. Giving them the full Congressional parachute and telling them they're only allowed to serve for a few years seems a little silly.

 

[Dippa]

It could reduce stories like this

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/wealthy-divorced-donor-helped-write-controversial-child-support-bill/article_b3e3ed40-738a-52ea-bbf9-04d03cfa0e18.html

This ##### of a Congressman has since withdrawn the bill due to public pressure

http://www.wiscnews.com/pdf_c960c9d7-4804-5498-9c11-5e7e28690aab.html

Kudos to the reporter who broke the story

On the other hand, would the congressman have caved to public pressure if he had no chance of being re-elected?

There are plenty of examples of lame ducks abusing their powers because they don't face accountability in the next election.

*cough* Bill Clinton *cough*

 

[TobiasFunke]

The notion that only one person the incumbent can do the job well is absurd.

If someone really believes this, he or she must have a really pessimistic view of humanity in general. There are a lot of smart people out there. The job isn't that hard. And fresh ideas are a good thing.

Nobody believes that, it's a straw man argument.

I agree with every word of your post, I just don't see why it needs to be done forcibly. There's an anti-incumbent super PAC, if Americans value fresh ideas and fresh voices over experience, people can donate to that in addition to campaigning and voting against the incumbent in their own state or district.

I admire your optimism, or dare I say idealism. I wish I still had it.

Was thinking the same thing.

I don't know if I'd call it optimism or idealism. I'd call it respect for the process. I don't want to substitute my judgment for someone else's. If they want to elect the same person to represent their district for 36 years, who am I to tell them they can't?

There are benefits and drawbacks to "new blood" vs experience for members. If it were obvious that one was vastly better than the other I might rethink my position, but since it's not I tend to default to giving voters complete freedom.

 

[tom22406]

The notion that only one person the incumbent can do the job well is absurd.

If someone really believes this, he or she must have a really pessimistic view of humanity in general. There are a lot of smart people out there. The job isn't that hard. And fresh ideas are a good thing.

Nobody believes that, it's a straw man argument.

I agree with every word of your post, I just don't see why it needs to be done forcibly. There's an anti-incumbent super PAC, if Americans value fresh ideas and fresh voices over experience, people can donate to that in addition to campaigning and voting against the incumbent in their own state or district.

I admire your optimism, or dare I say idealism. I wish I still had it.

Was thinking the same thing.

I don't know if I'd call it optimism or idealism. I'd call it respect for the process. I don't want to substitute my judgment for someone else's. If they want to elect the same person to represent their district for 36 years, who am I to tell them they can't?

There are benefits and drawbacks to "new blood" vs experience for members. If it were obvious that one was vastly better than the other I might rethink my position, but since it's not I tend to default to giving voters complete freedom.

Do you think it may force some voters to actually do some homework instead of just checking the box of the name they know?

 

[Patriotsfatboy1]

Term limits and increase their pay. What intelligent person who will manage trillions of dollars will leave private business to serve at current pay rates?

 

[CBusAlex]

Do you think it may force some voters to actually do some homework instead of just checking the box of the name they know?

Of course not. Now who's being idealistic?

 

[Rayderr]

Do you think it may force some voters to actually do some homework instead of just checking the box of the name they know?

Getting off on a tangent here, but if you really want to make the voters start doing some homework, remove party affiliation from the ballots. Way too many people blindly vote for a person solely because of the party.

 

[joffer]

I don't know if I'd call it optimism or idealism. I'd call it respect for the process. I don't want to substitute my judgment for someone else's. If they want to elect the same person to represent their district for 36 years, who am I to tell them they can't?

Valid point, however we already put limitations on eligibility to be elected. I'm not sure "you had your chance, thank you for your service" is that much more of an infringement on the democratic process.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Do you think it may force some voters to actually do some homework instead of just checking the box of the name they know?

Getting off on a tangent here, but if you really want to make the voters start doing some homework, remove party affiliation from the ballots. Way too many people blindly vote for a person solely because of the party.

Yup. I think term limits might lead to a few more educated voters, but also a LOT more voting straight party tickets

 

[tom22406]

Do you think it may force some voters to actually do some homework instead of just checking the box of the name they know?

Getting off on a tangent here, but if you really want to make the voters start doing some homework, remove party affiliation from the ballots. Way too many people blindly vote for a person solely because of the party.

Yup. I think term limits might lead to a few more educated voters, but also a LOT more voting straight party tickets

Agreed.

 

[Fennis]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

Nothing wrong with being anti-democracy.

 

[Don Quixote]

Do you think it may force some voters to actually do some homework instead of just checking the box of the name they know?

Getting off on a tangent here, but if you really want to make the voters start doing some homework, remove party affiliation from the ballots. Way too many people blindly vote for a person solely because of the party.

In the no party affiliation listed elections that I've been a part of, there's always someone from the local party standing outside the voting location handing out sample ballots. I guess it can help some, but it still won't require homework.

 

[roadkill1292]

Some systems function quite well where the people vote mostly for the party. Maybe we should think about something like that instead.

 

[RCon]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

What if voters in some districts make the collective decision to implement term limits? So be it?

 

[Stinger Ray]

Seems to me that term limits are an effort to dictate to other people who can and cannot represent them. Kinda anti-democracy if you ask me. I'm willing to respect the will of the people. If voters in some districts make the collective decision every two years to send the same person back to Washington to represent their interests, so be it.

I think term limits are an effort to reduce the influence of money on politics.

You can't buy votes.

 

[NCCommish]

We have term limits it's called voting.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm for it but think it should be 18 total years, Congressmen and Senators, both seats combined.

Also, I guess you or many know this but Congress itself has to pass this. I think the GOP and Gingrich took a running stab at this in 1994 - nothing doing.

I'm also for expanding Congress (repealing the 1910's law that permanently freezes the HOR at 435 seats) and sending one Senator from each state from the state itself (based on vote of the Legislature).

 

[Rayderr]

Some systems function quite well where the people vote mostly for the party. Maybe we should think about something like that instead.

How's it working here in the US?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

By the way - search function?

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=300086&hl=%2Bterm+%2Blimits

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=493275&hl=%2Bterm+%2Blimits

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=617666&hl=%2Bterm+%2Blimits

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=382342&hl=%2Bterm+%2Blimits