Seniority is easily quantifiable. Who is going to measure effectiveness and what criteria would be used?

You haven't shown any answer to small states' concerns except to say you "understand" them. How could they have influence?

I think your idea may sound nice to some but it is impractical in operation and opens up more problems than it solves. The system has worked fine since 1789. Leave it alone.

Originally Posted by ironhorseredleg

Pheonix, by federal officials, I meant elected officials on a national level--US senators (2 per state) and US representatives (different for each state based upon population). Currently, the US President has a term limit of no more than 2 complete 4 year terms.


------

Also, I wasn't discussing whether I thought term limits would be allowed into law. I completely understand the small state attitude--Kansas, 6 votes total. What I'm saying is that in a system with mandatory term limits, the focus would shift from seniority to effectiveness. Those two don't always go hand-in-hand today in American politics. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about wet behind the ears college kids getting elected to national office. The system would still adjust, it's just that the adjustments would be every 20 years instead of every 40-50. I think that kind of mandatory turn-over would help our elected officials stay grounded and in touch.

Okay! Gotcha..

I agree if they put a term limit for Ted Kennedy or John Kerry!

I have no problem with it at all!

Phoenix

That wouldnt change anything. They are both from Mass which is very liberal, all you'd do is replace 2 liberals with another two liberals. Believe me you think Kennedy is bad, there is worse. There are people just as radical on the left as Bush and Co is on the right.

As for term limits, I was originaly against term limits. But I have since change my mind and now am for them. The reason being is politics more than anything is run by money. Usually the one that spends the most wins (there are exceptions). We last saw this in 2004. But since politicans can simply keep buying their seats their should be a mechnism that prevents them from permanently installing themselves there.

I just dont think this country can survive a unlimited term Bush Presidency.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I just dont think this country can survive a unlimited term Bush Presidency.

I believe we are talking about congress. The presidency is pretty much encased with a 2 term limit. No president for life in the USA!!

Right now in my upper level history class, we are studying how the US Constitution was put to use. When it comes to politics, the USA was the first to give birth to the idea of voting officials out of office. Everyone else was still under monarchy. Everyone thought the American system was crazy for voting. People came to the US just to see how it worked. The general idea is that if a majority of the people think someone is doing bad, then he will be voted out next election.

That idea still holds true today. If someone is doing a bad job, then he or she gets the boot. You cannot fault the system if someone is popular or manipulates the masses in his or her favor. This is the land of the free. We cannot punish people just because they are successful.

Unfortunately, money plays a big part in elections. I am in favor of more regulation in terms of campaign money. The reforms that took place a while ago was not enough...but it is better than the system emplace in the 80's. Give it time, change in the USA is a slow process

Doody

Originally Posted by tomtom22

On the whole, I have to agree with Charge on this one. All politics is local. Looking no further than my own town, I look at the possiblities if the long term members of various boards & committees were dumped out simply because they had been there too long, I know that would produce chaos, because the replacements would no nothing and the mistakes made in gianing experience would be costly. When politicians screw up, the voters will vote them out. But as Charge said, all too often the opponent who opposes the long term incumbent, is merely window dressing simply to have someone run against him, or is just too inexperienced. I could cite many examples in my own home state, but I don't want to get in an argument between "Liberals" & "Conservatives", etc.

I went out to Chicopee, Mass. on business in the 80's and I asked the guy I was working with how they put up with Senator Kennedy. This was after listening to him griping about business downturn in the State. He was calling Sir Kennedy names I can't even repeat. The answer he gave me was, "oh, he's a good Senator, he takes care of us." I think the power comes from being the Sr. Senator or Speaker of the House so you can control committee appointments. It's not just the length of terms I am against but the way power is distributed in Congress. Tenure will always be a bad idea scholastically and Governmental.

Once, William F. Buckley said, (para.) there is always going to be a certain percentage of people voting who shouldn't be. I thought he was just being a pompous intellectual but I realized that he was describing the "party voters" who don't even listen to campaign speeches or read up on the background of the challenger. Power corrupts, etc..etc...!

I am not to sure about the number of terms that Politicians should hold office but I think there should be some form of cut of date due to their age. Personally speaking i think they should not serve past their 70's. By the time they have reached this age most of them do not have the energy for such a high powered job.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Phoenix

That wouldnt change anything. They are both from Mass which is very liberal, all you'd do is replace 2 liberals with another two liberals. Believe me you think Kennedy is bad, there is worse. There are people just as radical on the left as Bush and Co is on the right.

As for term limits, I was originaly against term limits. But I have since change my mind and now am for them. The reason being is politics more than anything is run by money. Usually the one that spends the most wins (there are exceptions). We last saw this in 2004. But since politicans can simply keep buying their seats their should be a mechnism that prevents them from permanently installing themselves there.

I just dont think this country can survive a unlimited term Bush Presidency.

I don't think Bush & co are as stupid as Kennedy, Kerry and Co...

Look at it this way, you have term limits for your President but not for your senators, Reps, Fed. Magistrates (BTW most Governors).

Now which method is better?

Well have you had better (term limited) presidents than (perpetually incumbent) legislators?

Did you get better government from the second and last term of a President not facing re-election than a legislator facing & wanting more re-elections?

Generally do multi-termed legislators perform better than first term legislators?

I don't know the answers, but the answers to these questions should shed light on which method is best. My own gut feeling is let the people decide. Surely if someone's doing a good job you keep him/her. If not you vote them out - that's what we do in Australia