Would you favor congressional term limits?

[OmahaBlueDog]

Throw the bums out: 75 percent back Congress term limits Yahoo News

Sure, voters sent a majority of incumbent members of Congress back to Washington in November 2012. But a new Gallup poll finds that 75 percent of Americans support imposing term limits on lawmakers in D.C.

Twenty-one percent would vote against a law limiting the number of terms representatives and senators can serve.

7 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I don't favor term limits.
	5 (71%)
	4 terms for Senators/12 terms for House members
	0 (0%)
	3 terms for Senators/9 terms for House members
	0 (0%)
	2 terms for Senators/6 terms for House members
	1 (14%)
	1 term in the Senate/3 terms for House members
	0 (0%)
	Other - and no, you can't just limit terms for Cantor, Foxx, Bachmann, & Boehner (nice try, though)
	1 (14%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[slackmaster]

1. No. Here in California term limits on our state-level offices have created unintended consequences

Inability of individual legislators to gain sufficient experience to fully realize their potential as lawmakers, and the creation of pseudo-apostolic succession dynasties in which successors are hand-picked. Combined with our heavily gerrymandered senate and assembly districts, it's almost impossible for someone with truly new ideas to get into office.

[OmahaBlueDog]

2. They made an interesting mistake here in Nebraska

..or maybe it wasn't a "mistake."

In our Unicam (out state legislature) there are term limits, but once yu're out for two years, you get to run again and start over. Ernie Chambers, a well known and controversial representative from North Omaha was term-limited out, but just retook his old seat.

[Brother Buzz]

3. Word!

[Hekate]

4. No, no, no, no. Ask Californians how well that is working here

All our elected officials have just enough time to learn where the restrooms are, and then they are out. The ones with initiative become lobbyists, and the LOBBYISTS know where everything is and how to get things done.

It's pure unadulterated crap, and I voted against it.

Here's the deal: the Constitution of the US and of every State provide term limits. They are called "elections."

[Luminous Animal]

8. I hope everyone reads your post because that is exactly what happens.

The newbies don't know how to write bills, they don't know how to create coalitions, and they don't know there way around the rules so they end up relying on corporate lobbyist "experts" to walk them through the process.

I have a link about a study somewhere and I will post it when I find it.

[dsc]

5. We have term limits they are called elections

[Stinky The Clown]

17. Louis Gohmert, for example, is completely immune to that form of term limit

So are most members of Congress.

We will probably always get the same sort of bozo in that seat, but at least it will be a different bozo for the lobbyists to find and pay.

[dsc]

18. so what

I don't think we should give up the Barney Franks of this world, or the Ted Kennedys of this world because some backwater elects Gohmert.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. It is a compromise. We are harmed more by the army of Gohmerts than we are helped by . . . .

. . . . . the exceptionals like Frank.

[karynnj]

6. No - every two years the Congressperson can be removed.

why take the voters choice away from them?

[Rex]

7. Only at the federal level where a career politician can do some real harm.

nt.

[Hekate]

9. See my post #4 about California. Term limits are a lobbyist's wet dream

In the US House and Senate seniority means everything -- not just a lot, everything.

Aside from that, you'd have to change the US Constitution. Just use the electoral process for what it was intended to do.

[Rex]

11. Then we need to do away with seniority meaning everything.

Doesn't work very well in the Army either. I like the idea of term limits at the federal level and Congress is a lobbyists wet dream RIGHT NOW.

If you cannot do it in 12 years, then you are not trying very hard imo.

[Hekate]

12. So then you have to change the US Constitution. Try ALEC

I'm sure they have some ideas.

[Rex]

13. Nope.

nt.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Either get the politicians out of the money or the money out of politics.

Since we can't ungerrymander, kick the fuckers out. Some good goes, more bad goes. What we have now ain't working.

[OmahaBlueDog]

14. Right now, the longer they stay, the more invested they get on committees

When they get on those committees, and stay on those committes (for years, and years, and years), the lobbyist money flows toward them. There's no real way to stop it. Once we had a press that went after that sort of thing; now they are too fixated on infotainment. So I think there's an argument that says get them out of office before their roots spread toward those vast pools of lobbyist money around Capitol Hill.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. Yes, I agree. Those are some of the more subtle aspects of the issue.

It is all about disconnecting the money from politics. Since they on't clean up their house, kick them out and keep kicking them out until they stop the money.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

15. 75% of Americans support it. I won't stand in their way. nt

[bobclark86]

20. Do we really want to trade...

435 worthless long-term fucktards for 435 brand new ones who have even LESS of a clue every two years? That's 2,175 new fucktards every 10 years.

Yeah, I'll stick with the devil I know rather than five times as many I don't...

[ellisonz]

21. I don't favor term limits for Congress...

...and oppose the current term limit on the President.

[Morning Dew]

22. The term for house seats needs to be lengthened

so they're not constantly in campaign mode.