Term Limits on Federal Politicians

[rawesome]

We do it for the President, why not Congressmen and Senators, too? What do you think?

[Machu505]

If the voters want someone to continuously represent them, why should we tell them they can't?

[saysmydoctor]

Senate terms need to be changed to four years and limited to thee terms.

Five terms for the House.

[Jason Tate]

Yes.

[rawesome]

If the voters want someone to continuously represent them, why should we tell them they can't?
The most common and best argument I've heard is that by creating a lifetime politician, or a career politician, you're not getting someone who is going to do their best to fight for anything because it is the status quo that allows them to keep their job. No one is going to want to do anything too drastic (like pass usable health care reform) if it may not get them reelected. If they don't have to worry about that they may be more willing to fight harder for more controversial agendas.

I don't know, we tell them that about the presidency and no one seems to mind.

[saysmydoctor]

If the voters want someone to continuously represent them, why should we tell them they can't?
I'd be okay with this if it weren't for the nature of incumbency. Naturally, you become a target of PAC money and such, so generally incumbents have huge cash advantages that kind of destroy the potentiality of a challenge.

[macabre]

One argument against term limits is that it discourages long-term policy goals because politicians then only become worried about the next election cycle, opting for policies with near-instantaneous results instead. The enactment of long-term goals could still be the focus of national party leadership though, even with term limits being imposed, so I don't think that's a strong criticism.

[cory-182]

All for it. Lifetime politicians are out of touch with normal, everyday people.

[open mind]

our electoral system is fucked anyways now that my "neighbors" exxon, pfizer, at&t, walmart, and boeing have officially been given unlimited influence over it.

edit:sounds like obama wants to address and correct this.

[jessicalynn-xx]

The most common and best argument I've heard is that by creating a lifetime politician, or a career politician, you're not getting someone who is going to do their best to fight for anything because it is the status quo that allows them to keep their job. No one is going to want to do anything too drastic (like pass usable health care reform) if it may not get them reelected. If they don't have to worry about that they may be more willing to fight harder for more controversial agendas.

I don't know, we tell them that about the presidency and no one seems to mind.

But if you have a limit on terms then you end up with lame-duck terms where the president (or other politician) knows there is no way they could possibly be re-elected so they stop caring because they have nothing to lose. That's their status quo. At least if they have the motivation of a possible re-election to keep the public's opinion in mind, as well as giving them enough time to make sure any new policies they try to implement will have enough time pan out. Eight years just isn't enough.

[saysmydoctor]

She actually brings up a valid point.

Maybe Plato was right.