Why not have term limits?

[ironhorseredleg]

This topic grew out of another post. What do you think about mandatory term limits? I know there can still be career politicians, just advancing every 2-3 terms but staying in politics. However, with the forced mixture of experience and newness built into our bi-cameral system, why shouldn't we have mandatory term limits. Say 5 two year terms as a representative and 3 six year terms as a senator. Additionally, I'm not even convinced a life-term for a supreme court justice is necessary. I'd like to see a system of 10 year terms that could either be re-approved by the seated president or replaced by a new presidential appointment.

 

[Missileer]

You know my position, I'm all for it and I think the terms can be shortened from your numbers. Just think of all the young, bright minds going to waste by keeping rich, licentious, old drunks semi-running Government. I also believe that all Judges should have to be voted on as they tend to become the same as career politicians. The impeachment process should become a little easier to use, with constraints, and if impeached, then censored.

 

[Charge 7]

The election system as it is works fine for me. I'm against term limits in that it has two basic problems.

One is that you would be tossing out qualified people just as they've gotten to know the job very well only to replace them with a newcomer for no other reason that that a period of time had elapsed. If a person is not good at their job then elect somebody else.

The second problem is that many government programs take a long time to get going and even then to have the bugs worked out etc. So what if your senior Senator has spent a decade getting something going and just as it's about to get there he's tossed out because he's at the end of his time limit? Lot of wasted time and tax dollars if you go that route. Not to mention alot less getting done.

 

[ironhorseredleg]

Charge, I believe our entire political system would change if folks new that they had mandatory term limits. A lot of the long, drawn out processes we have today in politics are precisely due to politicians wanting to draw things out as long as possible so they can continue to garner votes from a slow, steady progress that will ultimately lead to something great "if they can only get relected ONE MORE TIME." Additionally, folks who are really effective at getting things accomplished won't be bumped out of politics. They can move into other elected offices or move on to appointed positions, and working up through local, regional, and finally federal offices will still allow for a good 40 years in elected politics before being forced to move up, on, or out by term limits (28 years alone as rep and senator).

I would love to see an example of a career politician who hasn't lost sight of what's important to the majority of constituents, but I simply haven't had that experience in 22 years of voting in America. I find myself constantly having to choose the least bad option or "wasting" my vote on a fringe candidate that I mostly agree with.

 

[Charge 7]

Spend some time in committees like your local school board and then tell me that things could be done quickly. No, term limits would just get less done - not more as people spend less effort and less attention to programs and people that need it because their time is up.

I'm sorry you feel that way about your regional politicians. While I am not a fanatic about any of mine, I have found that I like both our Senators, and I think our Governor is doing a decent job as well (I just wish he'd get with the rest of the state on healthcare). I'm not so fond at all of our Congressman, but he has been steadily re-elected because the opposition has yet to put anybody forward that's better. However, even tossing him out for no other reason than time would leave this state with the choice between two less than qualified people who may have great intentions but would suck at the job. Nope, if you want to replace somebody then find someone better and elect them. Nobody should be tossed out simply because it's Friday and geez, but their time limit ended on Thursday.

 

[ironhorseredleg]

I've served on a committee or two in my years as a public school teacher and then district administrator. The ones that were most effective in my memory were those that had (or developed) a precise focus and pushed forward, neither of which are safe for a politician looking for re-election. The more waves you make, the more you might progress, but the greater chance you have of drawing attention to yourself from powerful enemies.

I still believe that while you may well have an occasional "good public official" forced to move on by term limits, you'll have a many more lackluster career politicians safely moved out. The only thing that 40 years experience in the senate provides is a deep understanding of the "old boys network" that I'm against anyway.

I'd rather have EVERY state have new senators once every 2 decades. I just don't think that's asking too much. Of course, we don't have to agree on this topic. I mean, I know how scary a new way of thinking can be for some folks

 

[Charge 7]

Okay, let's throw out everything I've said thus far and say you're right about all of it. Here's why it will never work. That Senator who's been there for 40 years has of course builtup a huge amount of seniority for their state. States will be reluctant at best to suddenly lose that power. I can tell you now that my state being a small state with little other influence will fight you tooth and nail on that one. I'm sure we're not alone. Shouldn't it be right that areas of the country have some hope for influence in the Federal government? Or must industry and population density alone decide that?

 

[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 know 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.

 

[phoenix80]

Excuse me all but as an out-siders and a non american, I guess this question is totally obscure.

The federal officials are appointed by elected officials and may be removed from office after those elected officials' terms is over.

 

[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.

 

[Charge 7]

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.

 

[phoenix80]

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!

 

[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.

 

[Duty Honor Country]

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

 

[Missileer]

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...!

 

[LeEnfield]

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.

 

[phoenix80]

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...

 

[Padre]

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