Term limits

[Ben Lamb]

There is some truth to that, but on the other hand how long does it take to figure it out? I see zero downside in having some sort of term limit, be it 2-4 terms. Alaska has had 4 representatives since statehood. One has served for 48 of the 58 years? At 86, do you think maybe he has had his fill?

That's up to the voters of Alaska to decide, isn't it?

It takes a long time to figure out how to govern well. It takes no time to learn how to demagogue and grandstand. What we have now is demagoguery & grandstanding, with precious little governing going on. The GOP spent 8 years of the Obama presidency obstructing the administration's goals. Democrats have done that the last 3 years of Trump.

 

[scubohuntr]

Term limits have been a nightmare in MT. We've handed all of the institutional power over to bureaucrats & lobbyists rather than vest it in the elected officials.

Term limits are also a abrogation of your right to vote for whom you choose too. Voting is the best form of term limits when it comes to congressional, not forced limits. If you really want to change how it all works, take the money out of politics and move to taxpayer funded elections.

We have less than 50% participation in elections in the United States. Up that, increase people's ability to get out and participate in elections, take the money out of politics and you'll have a much higher functioning congress. Enact Term Limits and you sentence the nation to a revolving doorway of ignorant legislators with no understanding how the system works.

I agree, term limits are not the solution logic would suggest they are. Congress was originally seen as a "service", not a career. There is so much money and power up for grabs, though, that I can't see any way to keep the greedy and grasping at bay. I've always said, mostly in jest, that we ought to bring back the draft, but for Congress instead of the military. You get drafted, all your net worth goes into an account that is tied to the national economy. Do a good job, you will get back more than you put in at the end of your service. But I know too many people to put it forward as a serious proposition. Most people I wouldn't trust to walk a dog, much less control the government.

I avoid discussions on politics because I am a cynic, and I really don't want to crush that adorable innocence some folks have when it comes to politics. We have low voter turnout and rampant election fraud, and it will only get worse. For one thing, individual votes don't matter, except sometimes in purely local contests. For another, even if "we, the people" were actually able to influence the outcome, there is no practical difference between Crook A and Crook B. Once they get into office, they will be owned and operated by the same interests, regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on. Anyone who would be worth having in Congress wouldn't touch it with a stick. If you have morals, free will, or a soul, you won't survive in politics. The first thing a newly elected legislator thinks of is re-election, and that drives every decision he ever makes. There is no thought of what is best for my country, or even what is best for my constituents. Just, what will get me re-elected. The campaigns and the primaries are just a method for the parties to weed out infidels who actually have an independent thought or two. By the time Joe Candidate gets through that process, he is marching in lockstep with his party, and has discovered in no uncertain terms that the only hope he has is in the Party. As the parties stampede toward their respective lunatic fringes in an attempt to look "different" from the Evil Other, the chokehold that they have on their members gets tighter. There is no way a third party will ever get started in this climate, so basically what we have here is a schizophrenic single party system. The system is run by career politicians for the sole benefit of themselves. I don't have any solutions. I wish I had one, or even any hope that it will eventually get better. All I can do at this point is hope the legislators really are as incompetent as they seem to be, and maybe the damage will proceed slowly enough that I won't live to see the eventual result.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

You're not wrong.

Term limits have been a nightmare in MT. We've handed all of the institutional power over to bureaucrats & lobbyists rather than vest it in the elected officials.

Term limits are also a abrogation of your right to vote for whom you choose too. Voting is the best form of term limits when it comes to congressional, not forced limits. If you really want to change how it all works, take the money out of politics and move to taxpayer funded elections.

We have less than 50% participation in elections in the United States. Up that, increase people's ability to get out and participate in elections, take the money out of politics and you'll have a much higher functioning congress. Enact Term Limits and you sentence the nation to a revolving doorway of ignorant legislators with no understanding how the system works.

What about ~20 year terms 3 terms senators, 10 for reps... 20 years isn't exactly a revolving door.

 

[noharleyyet]

..trivia

Term limits movement[edit]
"Homesteading," or securing a lifelong career in Congress, was made possible by reelection rates that approached 100% by the end of the 20th century. The concept of homesteading brought about a popular movement known as the "term-limits movement". The elections of 1990–94 saw the adoption of term limits for state legislatures in almost every state where citizens had the power of the initiative. In addition, 23 states limited service in their delegation to Congress. As they pertain to Congress, these laws are no longer enforceable, however, as in 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned congressional term limits in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, ruling that state governments cannot limit the terms of members of the national government.[17]

Where rotation in the legislative branch has withstood court challenges, term limits continue to garner popular support. As of 2002, the advocacy group "U.S. Term Limits" found that in the 17 states where state legislators served in rotation, public support for term limits ranged from 60 to 78 percent.[18]

 

[Ben Lamb]

..trivia

Term limits movement[edit]
"Homesteading," or securing a lifelong career in Congress, was made possible by reelection rates that approached 100% by the end of the 20th century. The concept of homesteading brought about a popular movement known as the "term-limits movement". The elections of 1990–94 saw the adoption of term limits for state legislatures in almost every state where citizens had the power of the initiative. In addition, 23 states limited service in their delegation to Congress. As they pertain to Congress, these laws are no longer enforceable, however, as in 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned congressional term limits in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, ruling that state governments cannot limit the terms of members of the national government.[17]

Where rotation in the legislative branch has withstood court challenges, term limits continue to garner popular support. As of 2002, the advocacy group "U.S. Term Limits" found that in the 17 states where state legislators served in rotation, public support for term limits ranged from 60 to 78 percent.[18]

Compare that to the approval rates of those legislatures. Ours hovers around 15%.

Term limits didn't change that, and they only weakened the institution.

 

[noharleyyet]

Lobbyists love the buy once cry once efficacy. So does the two party bi-opoly.

 

[Irrelevant]

Lobbyists love the buy once cry once efficacy. So does the two party bi-opoly.

Do they? I mean if incumbents are more likely to be reelected, don't they need the party less and less the longer they're in office?

 

[Addicting]

Compare that to the approval rates of those legislatures. Ours hovers around 15%.

Term limits didn't change that, and they only weakened the institution.

We don’t have term limits at the National level. I don’t think that institution is any stronger...

 

[Ben Lamb]

We don’t have term limits at the National level. I don’t think that institution is any stronger...

Our politics are far more tribal now than in any time in the past history. That doesn't lend itself to the kind of compromise that is necessary to govern a nation of 50 semi-autonomous states.

Stop electing jackwagons, and start electing statespeople again. Term limits doesn't help do that, because once a representative or senator has the experience necessary to be a statesman, they're termed out.

The money influence in politics is the biggest factor in reducing this nation to a for-profit excuse of a country. Get that out of the election cycle, and you decrease the ad buys, while decreasing the ease by which some entities can purchase politicians.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Lobbyists love the buy once cry once efficacy. So does the two party bi-opoly.

Lobbyists prefer term limits. It's easier to lead new legislators astray than experienced ones.

It's also a lot cheaper.

You also need to remember that no corporate lobbyist worth their salt is really going to try and solve an issue that they can get billable hours on, so increased ineffectiveness of congress means increased efficacy of their paycheck.

Again - it's about the money.

 

[Sytes]

1951 Congress ensured a President would not run more than two terms. Theodore Roosevelt tried for three though lost. Franklin Roosevelt had four terms.

Gotta love Congress... let's place term limits on a voted President though not on a voted Congressional Representative.

Regarding the polarized or Tribal status of our political world, a pretty good article - if reading fits your fancy:

The Impact of Increased Political Polarization

Increased polarization in the U.S., with deep antipathy toward those of the opposite political persuasion, has potentially negative long-term effects.

news.gallup.com

 

[Gr8bawana]

I always crack up when someone says we need term limits. They are always referring to the "other" party when they say it, never their own.
Elections are term limits. When the voters that elected said politicians are no longer happy with them they don't get re-elected.
The one place I can see term limits needed is for appointed Federal Court judges which are being stacked with unqualified conservative judges by turtleman and Supreme Court judges as well.

 

[Ben Lamb]

1951 Congress ensured a President would not run more than two terms. Theodore Roosevelt tried for three though lost. Franklin Roosevelt had four terms.

Gotta love Congress... let's place term limits on a voted President though not on a voted Congressional Representative.

Regarding the polarized or Tribal status of our political world, a pretty good article - if reading fits your fancy:

The Impact of Increased Political Polarization

Increased polarization in the U.S., with deep antipathy toward those of the opposite political persuasion, has potentially negative long-term effects.

news.gallup.com

Charles,

There's a massive differnece between limiting the Chief Executive to 2 terms versus congressionals. POTUS wields a tremendous amount of power, and as we came from a monarchy, it was common practice to leave office after 2 terms w/out worrying about the effect of seeking a 3rd or 4th term. FDR was the president who brought about that Constitutional Amendment by winning his 4th term. TR only ran twice. He was elevated to the role of the President by the assassination of McKinley.

Concentrating power in one individual at the executive level is akin to establishing a monarchy. That's what the constitutional prohibition on more than 2 terms for POTUS is really about.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Is this a reality tv show?

 

[Elkmagnet]

I always crack up when someone says we need term limits. They are always referring to the "other" party when they say it, never their own.
Elections are term limits. When the voters that elected said politicians are no longer happy with them they don't get re-elected.
The one place I can see term limits needed is for appointed Federal Court judges which are being stacked with unqualified conservative judges by turtleman and Supreme Court judges as well.

This implies that the person wanting term limits is affiliated with a party.
Im pro term limit like 6 terms is probably a good number.

 

[noharleyyet]

Do they? I mean if incumbents are more likely to be reelected, don't they need the party less and less the longer they're in office?

Do you even primary bro....I'm kidding neffa but yes they need the party.

 

[Sytes]

I always crack up when someone says we need term limits. They are always referring to the "other" party when they say it, never their own.
Elections are term limits. When the voters that elected said politicians are no longer happy with them they don't get re-elected.
The one place I can see term limits needed is for appointed Federal Court judges which are being stacked with unqualified conservative judges by turtleman and Supreme Court judges as well.

Irony...

#FutileResistance.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Do they? I mean if incumbents are more likely to be reelected, don't they need the party less and less the longer they're in office?

They still need the party for campaign financing.
I believe I can only give 5k t any one candidate
But I can give 3 million to a party and they can distribute as needed.
Feel free to correct me if Im wrong

 

[Addicting]

This implies that the person wanting term limits is affiliated with a party.
Im pro term limit like 6 terms is probably a good number.

Bull Moose 2020!

 

[Sytes]

Charles,

There's a massive differnece between limiting the Chief Executive to 2 terms versus congressionals. POTUS wields a tremendous amount of power, and as we came from a monarchy, it was common practice to leave office after 2 terms w/out worrying about the effect of seeking a 3rd or 4th term. FDR was the president who brought about that Constitutional Amendment by winning his 4th term. TR only ran twice. He was elevated to the role of the President by the assassination of McKinley.

Concentrating power in one individual at the executive level is akin to establishing a monarchy. That's what the constitutional prohibition on more than 2 terms for POTUS is really about.

Wasn't it Dewey who lost to FDR that popped the big, "Term Limit" idea?

I am not opposed to the term limits on a President however, on this topic, I would be interested if a quantity of years would be a fair call for Congress as well. 12 years?

H.J.Res.20 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve.

Summary of H.J.Res.20 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve.

www.congress.gov