I'd like to have a serious discussion of term limits

[Stinky The Clown]

It is probably a fair statement that many here would like to see some of our elected DC representatives (House and Senate) replaced. It is also probably a fair statement that many here would like some of our elected DC representatives to stay for life ... and maybe even have those lives extended.

A change in term limits probably makes the latter case impossible.

But, even in view of losing a few very good or excellent Dems, I think its time to start thinking about term limits. I tend to think that service beyond a term or three leads to a disconnect and an entrenchment on the part of even the very best elected official. I'd rather take my chances on making an occasional bad pick and living through a term or two than try to get a Lieberman type to just go away.

But then there are other considerations. A 'lame duck' rep has no incentive whatever to listen to a damn thing we say. Term limits will prevent us from sending a good, effective person back. I think we can address both situations with one small twist on term limits. That would be a term limit with a stipulation that a person can repeat in office, but only after sitting out a term or two.

I also think that term limits for a six year Senate term need to be considered differently than a term limit standard for a two year House seat.

Anyway, these are just some quickie, random thoughts. I'd love to hear your views.

[Justitia]

1. Term limits seem inherently anti-Democratic, procedure thwarting the

political will of the people.

However, I can't reconcile that with my belief that Presidential term limits are a good thing, and I also believe we should have Judicial term limits.

So my opinions are contradictory and in conflict w/each other..................

:shrug:

[ecassese]

2. Term Limits and Descriptive Representation

Incumbency is such a powerful force in determining elections in the US. I remember reading recently that upwards of 90 percent of incumbents who run are reelected. Originally many women's groups and minority groups supported term limits - as a way to get the old white guys out of office and unsher in a more diverse set of representatives. However, the preliminary evidence from the state legislatures suggests that term limits haven't had this effect. In many states there is actually a decrease in women and minority representation. The articles I read suggested that party recruitment strategies aren't really changing. The parties aren't grooming "nontraditional" candidates to hold these newly opened offices. It seems that even if term limits are extended to the national legislature, one would still have to worry about the way parties choose candidates.

[serryjw]

3. The link is bad, but you get the message

quote.......
2004 Election : 98.7 % Incumbency Rate in the US House ... Only 5 members of congress were tossed out of office by voters - - two Republicans and three ...

end quote........


I am getting closer to thinking that term limits are NO LONGER good for democracy. It breeds corruption and greed. The lobbies have an easy time of bribing congressional members with trips and privilege. They would have to work much harder if they changed every few years. It would also force the populous to learn about each candidate when there is no incumbent.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Can you clarify, please?

I'm not sure what you're saying.

You wrote: "I am getting closer to thinking that term limits are NO LONGER good for democracy." I think you may have meant to say that *unlimited terms* are no longer good for democracy.

After that sentence, you go on to make, what appears to me to be, a case in favor of term limits.

I'm not challenging anything you're saying, just asking for clarification.

[serryjw]

6. You are correct

I'm online with a splitting headache from the heat. I have no idea what MY name is!..Thanks for figuring it out!

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Okay. And here .......

and



Feel better, k? :hi:

[serryjw]

12. I took your aspirin

now I'm going to take a nap...see ya later
Namaste

[nickinSTL]

4. term limits are a bad idea

they rob the people of experienced legislators who know how things work. By the time they learn the job...oh, sorry...you can't serve any longer.

In Missouri, term limits were passed, and from what I understand, it has vastly increased the power of lobbyists. The reps don't know nearly as much about how things work as the lobbyists do, so they take their instructions from them. (even more so than they did before)

Not to mention that if the people aren't happy with their reps, that's what elections are for. Just because we're unhappy with the Repubs in power now, that's no reason to throw out Democrats like Kennedy and Conyers.

[LynneSin]

7. 1994 Contract for(ON) America addressed Term Limits

Senators were suppose to serve two years.

They never lived up to that one - hell Rick Santorum is still running even though he was one of the senators swepted into office back in 1994

[OzarkDem]

8. HELL NO, we have it in Ohio and it sucks

The GOP quickly ratchets up the cost of running for office by spending huge amounts to win seats. And under term limits, new people have to run for office all the time. In some rural districts the GOP runs out of people to run for office because of the turnover and they start scraping the bottom of the barrel. We've got kids only a couple years out of high school in office here, because they have name recognition or connections.

You also lose experience and institutional memory. In the House, you'll end up with huge numbers of new members every other year who have been bought and paid for by big corporate donors and who don't know beans about what they're doing. It makes it very easy for the GOP to trick legislators into making huge changes in programs like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. because they don't have the experience to understand the collateral affects. The same thing applies for Dems who aren't too experienced - they end up getting duped and bribed by the GOP to vote for bad legislation.

Being a Congressperson is a very complex job, it requires a lot of skill and knowledge, if you're doing it right. OTOH, if you're just showing up and voting the way your party tells you to vote and all the legislation is written by corporations, then its pretty simple.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. In your view .....

.... would publically financed campaigns help to get the corporate money out of the equation? And if that happens (no corporate money) would it work better?

[ecassese]

11. Corporate Money or the Parties?

I think that publically financed campaigns would help, but that the parties need to change before you will see a dramatic change in electoral and policy outcomes.

[rhett o rick]

13. Free and honest elections then worry about term limits. nm

[Igel]

14. I mostly agree with you.

I was in favor of term limits: the legislators in the state were entrenched, only paid attention at election time--at which point they clearly monopolized the public square, sent out glossy 'reports' that looked a heck of a lot like campaigning on the taxpayers dime, and usually had the support of the party bosses that they had long schmoozed. They could use their skills in office to make sure that they had enough of a war chest to squash nearly any opponent; and they had a record. They also had the ability, in a few instances, to label criticism of their record as 'negative campaigning'--in other words, they could run on the good things they'd in the legislature, and their opponent couldn't point out their failures and had no legislative accomplishments. Seems fair? Democratic? No, not quite. Like the free market and capitalism, 'pure' democracy needs some regulation; we don't accept majoritarianism, and when the perks of incumbency distort the process something needs to be done.

But having been on a board of directors, I found that term limits' stripping out the experienced hands only gives power to the staffers and the lobbyists. Hardly what's wanted or needed. Newbies came on board with great, swollen egos and completely unrealistic ideas about what the body's authority was, and what their role was. It took them months and months to (1) learn the ropes and (2) learn they weren't the center of the universe. So two terms (assuming 2-3 year terms) is too short a time for a legislator, if half the legislature is new at the beginning of each term.

Perhaps 3 terms (7 or the next highest number), or 2 terms with the requirement that they sit out an election and are eligible after that.

[MethuenProgressive]

15. Term limits are called "elections"

And come November, it'd be grand to see some GOP terms limited.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Nope, just level the playing field with public campaign financing

Then we will be able to have term limits called elections.

[dogman]

17. I think term limits is a distraction.

It ignores the real problem that plagues Congress, campaign finance reform. We need public financed campaigns to eliminate the time and energy spent fund raising with its inherent payback obligations. We also need real ethics rules that eliminate lobbyists from enriching the politicians or their families and no private sector jobs from companies they have benefited, for them or their families for a number of years following their term. All term limits would accomplish is letting more people get their fingers in the pie and receiving pensions at our expense. There is a lot of knowledge that would be lost through term limits. Eliminating earmarking and some seniority perks would also make voters less likely to be bought by incumbents. The hardest part is that the present system is not likely to change because those in power to change it will not give up their power. Yet they think of themselves as real patriots.

[greenohio]

18. It would end insider/incumbent advantage and end re-election paralysis

[Vidar]

19. Term limits backfire by getting rid of some real statesmen, and

increase the influence of corporate money by forcing more expensive campaigns.

[SCDem]

20. I'm against term limits because I like my Congressman

I used to be indifferent to talk about term limits. But now that I am more involved in politics and know my Congressman and how smart he is and how much he knows the area he represents and the committees that he sits on - I would feel much more comfortable with him there than a freshman congressman whether he were a Democrat or Republican.

Second point I believe that (at least in the case of Congressman) the longer a politician is in office the more they are able to represent the views and wishes of their constituents vs the party platform that got them there. Right now a Republican is trying to unseat our Congressman and what I tell people who are Republicans and have voted for our Democratic Congressman in the past but are now thinking about voting for the Republican candidate - You are better served by our Congressman whether you are a Republican or a Democrat or indifferent to the whole political process than you will be by a Freshman Republican Newcomer. First Seniority means a great deal - pork is actually good when you have it and it provides jobs to fight unemployment in certain regions from topping 12%. Second he is much more willing to listen to your concerns and issues and not just vote party line. I believe that is a good thing.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. Okay, as a summary response to the discussion thus far ......

The effective arguments against term limits that seem to have been made in this thread are:

- Term limits cause us to lose good representatives

- Term limits will cause more corporate money due to more costly campaigns

- Term limits cause a break in historical perspective and continuity among our reps

So ... back to the drawing board ......

First, it might be good to discuss term limits in concert with *real* campaign finance reforms. To me, that means, very simply, publicly funded campaigns. No campaign contributions at all from anyone - private citizen or corporate 'person'. Very simply - take a dime/go to jail.

As to the continuity issue, that's not as easy. I understand the sentiment, but in my mind, being able to keep people from becoming ossified in office - and **most** elected reps do - I'd rather sacrifice some of the continuity for the bigger goal of change. That said, allowing a person to retake an office after sitting out a term or two seems very reasonable. Presumably, being out of office for a time will allow a more 'common man' perspective to return to a rep. The specifics of the number terms that can be served and the number of terms that need to be sat out is debatable. I'd offer two terms in and one term out for a Senator and three terms in and one term out for a Rep, but I'm not at all married to these numbers.

[welshTerrier2]

24. good governance ...

i start with the question: "what problems are we trying to solve?"

term limits implicitly define the problem as people remaining in office too long ... they assume that to be undesirable ...

and why undesirable? because it is presumed that we don't get good government and good representation when someone holds office for a long time ...

many of the responses above challenge that presumption ... it certainly is not reasonable to argue that all long-termers are poor representatives - there are good ones and bad ones ... if you point out the bad ones to argue for term limits, others quite rightly point out the good ones ...

term limits are inherently undemocratic ... while their goal might be to give more people a chance to lead, the reality is that they remove choice to keep people we like ... they're sort of the mandatory sentencing of the election process ... i prefer to allow more flexibility ...

but something needs to be done to repair our democracy ... term limits seem to me to be a draconian solution to some very serious problems ... for me, it would be the solution of last resort ... there are far better solutions we should push for ...

first, as many have stated, we have to take the money out of elections ... publically financed campaigns COUPLED WITH the immediate beheading of anyone who gives money as a lobbyist or takes money from a lobbyist ... the trial would be held immediately AFTER the execution ...

second, we have to recognize that one of the primary jobs of elected officials, a job that is almost not even acknowledged anymore, is educating the public on the great issues of the day ... we, the people, you may be shocked to learn, are incredibly ill-informed on the issues ... democracy cannot possibly exist in this climate ...

third, and this ties in with informing the electorate, we need to improve the process of representation ... politicians, a way down there in DC, are way out of touch with their constituents ... they are isolated and insulated ... democracy should not be a process where we elect someone, send them away, and hope they do well ... regular contact, regular feedback and regular face-to-face interaction is needed ...

the issues of educating the public and more direct contact could be solved with regular, free public forums between elected leaders and their constituents ... senators and congressman should divide up their districts and make at least one appearance a year in each divided up segment ... this "face time" should help alleviate at least a little of the public's cynicism that is slowly but undeniably eroding our democracy ...

and finally, there's this gerrymandering business ... no, it's NOT OK ... what kind of nonsense is it that allows politicians to play political divide-up-the-pie games??? ... gerrymandering is cheating; it's just that simple ... i would support a much more automated process in this area ...

senate and congressional districts should be determined primarily by geography ... if a state is wide, it should be sliced vertically ... if it's tall, it should be sliced horizontally ... effort should be made to create districts of relatively equal population ... some variation, to include an entire county, instead of slicing it in half, could be allowed ... the process of creating districts should be based on standardized, logical criteria; not politics ...

let's start with some or all of the above ideas before looking at a drastic measure like term limits ... without the other changes, term limits may do little more than bring fresh players into a stale system ...

the idea of "good government" is thought of as "boring" by far too many people ... it's the quickest way to a yawn ... the thing is, though, it shouldn't be ... there is NOTHING more important ... NOTHING ... Democrats would be wise to adopt it as the centerpiece of their platform ... they won't, of course ... criticizing the status quo takes courage ... they'll talk about it via wonky programs, good programs, like campaign finance reform and lobby reform; they'll shy away from framing the issue as good governance because they're worried about being seen as critical of America ... and little will change ...

[Cosmocat]

22. I tend to agree ...

with a lot of the points that people are making about the limitations with term limits ...

I have thought that there might be some kind of system divised to allow each caucaus to have a certain percentage of representatives allowed to be "tenured" in that that can keep running, while having the other percentage have term limits applied ... Also, I think it might be time to move represenatives from a two, to a three year cycle ...

[Stinky The Clown]

23. I'm curious as to why you think a change from 2 to 3 year terms

might be beneficial.