US Federal Politics: Term limits for Congress

[xcorps]

What do you think?

Would a one term limit for Senators and a three term limit for Representatives increase the quality of the individuals who apply for public service?

[motiv-8]

It's an interesting idea, but I feel like there could be other options for getting life-time incumbents out of there.

[Trey]

It's an interesting idea, but I feel like there could be other options for getting life-time incumbents out of there.

Well it is pretty difficult for independent candidates to secure consistent funding of any substance. And the party will naturally support someone who they know is in line with policy, in essence the status quo. That's a large part of why very little seems to get done. Term limits are necessary because although everyone hates congress, they all love their own representative.

[Jabberwock]

It's actually quite fine the way it is but not perfect. I think there is some misconceptions on how we view Congress which may make want to think about term limits.

The House of Reps has a little bit more power and say than the Senate. I really don't think many people are aware of that. The HoR has shorter terms than the Senate AND contains four times as many officials which leads to more representation. This outweighs the idea to impose term limits because you will continuously have people coming in and out of the House.

The Senate on the other hand I see a problem. I think the terms should be shortened. Unfortunately, senators get all the attention because there is so little of them and because of their long terms. IMO, the attention should be shifted to the HoR because it better represents the people in all its diversity.

The closest we got to term limits was The Citizen Legislature Act in '95 pushed by Republicans. The HoR would get more terms than the Senate. Which how it should be.

[motiv-8]

Well it is pretty difficult for independent candidates to secure consistent funding of any substance. And the party will naturally support someone who they know is in line with policy, in essence the status quo. That's a large part of why very little seems to get done. Term limits are necessary because although everyone hates congress, they all love their own representative.

So what if you knocked out that whole funding thing by repealing the 17th Amendment?

The Senate was never truly implied to be the wiser house of Legislature. It's merely the balance to the House. Every state is represented equally whereas the house every state is represented proportionally.

The senate was indeed meant to be the balance, both in terms of drafting legislature and in balance of powers. The House was the... house... that fulfilled the idea of direct democracy. The senate was originally designed to have its members drawn from the votes of the state legislatures, securing a place of the states in Congress, while finally the President was elected by the Electoral College.

That balance got thrown a little out of whack with the aforementioned 17th Amendment.

[Gaidin]

The senate was indeed meant to be the balance, both in terms of drafting legislature and in balance of powers. The House was the... house... that fulfilled the idea of direct democracy. The senate was originally designed to have its members drawn from the votes of the state legislatures, securing a place of the states in Congress, while finally the President was elected by the Electoral College.

That balance got thrown a little out of whack with the aforementioned 17th Amendment.

Yup, but the trick to that is the states approved of the 17th and gave up that right. The 17th wouldn't have gotten passed without their approval. The Senate still fulfills their role of being the equal representation of the different states while the House has their proportional representation.

[motiv-8]

Yup, but the trick to that is the states approved of the 17th and gave up that right. The 17th wouldn't have gotten passed without their approval. The Senate still fulfills their role of being the equal representation of the different states while the House has their proportional representation.

Silly me for forgetting how the amendment process works.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

Can't say I'm all that much in favor of term limits. I think that would only increase the power of the bureaucracy and political staffers.

[motiv-8]

Can't say I'm all that much in favor of term limits. I think that would only increase the power of the bureaucracy and political staffers.

... How's that?

[The Devil's Sergeant]

... How's that?

As with any job there is a learning curve. It takes time for a representative to learn how to be an effective legislator. They need truly detailed knowledge of the government's inner workings, the people, the laws and regulations and so on. As the old saying goes knowledge is power. By placing term limits you are also limiting knowledge/power in the elected official. The people who are entrenched, the bureaucrats and staffers (who are always one election away from being lobbyists) their power increases, since they are the ones that are staying put and acquiring the knowledge of how the government works.

[MathiasOfAthens]

And limit the amount of that may or may not get done. Some Senators devote who careers to one particular goal.

Besides 1 term is a little small, maybe 4 or 5 at the minimum. Has to be other alternatives to get congressman off the lobbyist drink.

[xcorps]

And limit the amount of that may or may not get done. Some Senators devote who careers to one particular goal.

Besides 1 term is a little small, maybe 4 or 5 at the minimum. Has to be other alternatives to get congressman off the lobbyist drink.

A Senator who devotes his career to one goal is a failure, regardless of that goal. The job of a Senator is represent the people who voted him into office.

4-5 terms is 24 or 30 years for a Senator.

[s.rwitt]

Don't like it. I don't even like the term limit for the President.

[Hounf of Culan]

I don't like it, I mean I don't think the state of West Virginia has enough public construction projects named after Robert Byrd. How are they gonna correct that if there is a term limit.

[Del Valle]

What do you think?

Would a one term limit for Senators and a three term limit for Representatives increase the quality of the individuals who apply for public service?

The senate is supposed to be the upper, wiser house of legilature, with the House being for the wishhes of the common rabble. I believe a better sytem would be three-term limits for Senators and two term-limits for Representatives.

That is, if we undertake term reform. I believe the current system is fine. If the voters like a particular man and feel he best represents them, why not vote for him?

[Gaidin]

The senate is supposed to be the upper, wiser house of legilature, with the House being for the wishhes of the common rabble. I believe a better sytem would be three-term limits for Senators and two term-limits for Representatives.

The Senate was never truly implied to be the wiser house of Legislature. It's merely the balance to the House. Every state is represented equally whereas the house every state is represented proportionally.

[Del Valle]

The Senate was never truly implied to be the wiser house of Legislature. It's merely the balance to the House. Every state is represented equally whereas the house every state is represented proportionally.

Apologies for the late response. I was refering to the philosophical origins of the Senate, the classical belief that government should have the one, the few, and the many, with the President being the one, the Senate being the few, the House being the many.

[Dr Zoidberg]

Obviously a contributing factor to life/long-termers is due to the fact that a) its very expensive to run & b) considering you could be ousted in just 2 years time, making the effort to run might not be worth the gain.

How to solve a) I've no idea. That's a whole 'campaign finance reform palaba' which I've no knowledge of. But regarding b), maybe lengthening a term (3 or 4 years), would encourage more people to run; knowing that they're position would secure for long enough to learn the ropes, achieve something and be ready to run for re-election?

Looking at it a bit more deeply, I actually think the two issues are linked. It needs to be easier for people to run, and it needs to be worth it in terms of a job. Over to you, American voters.

[Admiral Piett]

I absolutely agree xcorps. Do you know why there is so much infighting in the current Democratic Congress? It's between the middle-aged more liberal types and the christian democrat dinosaurs that have planted their ass in their Congressional seat for so long that the smell of their thighs will remain on that seat for decades. Just look at Strom Thurman before he died and even better look at Harry Reid now. No person needs to hold a position of power for that long. There simply is no excuse and its totally contrary to our democratic and even federalist traditions of checking power. Political careers need to be redirected towards the original intent. For the benefit of the constituents, not the benefit of themselves. Plus times change and values change.

[Nietzsche]

3 term limit for Senators. 5 term limit for the House. Combined that's 28 years of Federal public service. If they want to continue they'll have to move to a department, cabinet, or *gasp* a state/local position.

However, this will never happen. There is no public referendum at the Federal level, and Congress is not going to limit their own power.