Support NeoGAF

[Sixfortyfive]

When you want to have an actual debate let me know

You should probably read his other posts.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Why is it a meaningless analogy? You would agree that a policeman, judge and a lawyer require full-time professionals, right?

Being a member of Congress is hardly a full time position, they meet for what 140 days a year? They spend a significant amount of time working on being re-elected which is not actually doing their job.

 

[tedrotheredro]

I guess this is the kind of shit Cruz is gonna pull now that he isn't on the losers' side.

 

[Vermillion]

Wait wait wait. Didn't the Democrats want to do this right after the election? And a few people here were all for it? I'm confused.

 

[Karl2177]

I'm guessing quite a few of you don't live in a state where people just vote incumbent because they have experience. Like all an incumbent here has to do is say their opponent has no "real" political experience and they jump 10 points in the polls. They just get elected time after time again and it doesn't really feel like they are representing the interests of the people after a while, but the alternative could be someone who is completely clueless as the incumbent would have you believe.

Also in regards to Michigan, there are far more systemic problems that are also factoring into corruption than just term limits. Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Dakota also have term limits and only a few of those have nearly the problem that Michigan has.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

I get that there will be some of that but even with named successors as you put it you can get an influx of new ideas. Look at our most recent presidential election, the people running are past normal retirement age. We need to get fresh blood in the system somehow.



When you want to have an actual debate let me know

That onus should be on the opposition party, and the candidates they field. Again with better transparency about lobbying you better arm opposition when it comes to elections. The choice should ultimately be up to the people and if someone serves their district/state over their terms then they should be rewarded.

 

[Blader]

Why can't the same argument about inexperience and lobbying be made for the president?

How often do ex-presidents leave the Oval Office to become lobbyists? They devote their time and attention to philanthropy, or just retire altogether.

Wait wait wait. Didn't the Democrats want to do this right after the election? And a few people here were all for it? I'm confused.

There are a few people in this thread that are for it right now. That doesn't this is, or should be, a Democratic Party priority or progressive priority.

 

[numble]

Being a member of Congress is hardly a full time position, they meet for what 140 days a year? They spend a significant amount of time working on being re-elected which is not actually doing their job.

The full time job doesn't just entail their meetings. That's like saying a lawyer is not a full time position if they are only in court a few days a month.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Look, I've posted links to research on term limit. I'm afraid it's your turn to actually put up or shut up here.

I also asked you if there's any other job that you'd put a limit on, and you just responded that the example I gave can't be compared with no actual evidence on that either.

You're the one not debating.

Over the course of my life I've seen horrible candidates be re-elected repeatedly in my state just because they are the incumbent. Pretty much no campaigning at all. All while taking tons of money from special interests. This is not unique to my state either. Plenty of public servant positions have term limits, I know its not uniform by any means but its difficult to compare public vs private sector.

The full time job doesn't just entail their meetings. That's like saying a lawyer is not a full time position if they are only in court a few days a month.

I know that they do other things besides sit in the Capitol. My point is that they spend a significant chunk of time working on getting re-elected so I wouldn't deem it "full time" doing their actual job.

 

[RDreamer]

Over the course of my life I've seen horrible candidates be re-elected repeatedly in my state just because they are the incumbent. Pretty much no campaigning at all. All while taking tons of money from special interests. This is not unique to my state either. Plenty of public servant positions have term limits, I know its not uniform by any means but its difficult to compare public vs private sector.

By what metric are you defining "horrible candidates," though?

I know that they do other things besides sit in the Capitol. My point is that they spend a significant chunk of time working on getting re-elected so I wouldn't deem it "full time" doing their actual job.

So why is the answer to the fact that you deem they're not full time enough to make the position even less full time than any other job?

You seem to have a problem with money in politics, which isn't something I can argue against, but your solution isn't to actually attack that problem. It is instead this strange roundabout way of getting there by curbing democracy and making the position itself worse off. Shouldn't we just be talking about limits to campaign contributions and campaign finance reform?

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

So no different than what's going on in Washington today

Worse. Everyone would be a newbie. They do some disgusting shit but imagine everyone with no experience.

The only people with experience would be slick talking lobbyists. If you think veteran congressman are easily swayed by lobbyists and special interest groups, then how would a rookie respond?

 

[numble]

I know that they do other things besides sit in the Capitol. My point is that they spend a significant chunk of time working on getting re-elected so I wouldn't deem it "full time" doing their actual job.

We could argue about those facts (such as the fact that it is arguably part of the job to listen to what voters want, convince voters you are the right candidate for them and are helping them), but it is an irrelevant point.

The starting point is that you would agree that a politician without term limits could be more "full time" and professional than a politician with term limits, correct?

 

[diablos991]

We could argue about those facts (such as the fact that it is arguably part of the job to listen to what voters want, convince voters you are the right candidate for them and are helping them), but it is an irrelevant point.

The starting point is that you would agree that a politician without term limits could be more "full time" and professional than a politician with term limits, correct?

Listening and doing should be the only requirements for the job.

Convincing your constituents is bullshit. Let them focus on meaningful change instead of swooning people with twisted words.

 

[Manmademan]

Being a member of Congress is hardly a full time position, they meet for what 140 days a year? They spend a significant amount of time working on being re-elected which is not actually doing their job.

Is being a teacher not a full time job because they're only in class 180 days a year?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I always thought the constitution was an untouchable holy grail for everything.

Only when guns are involved.

 

[numble]

Listening and doing should be the only requirements for the job.

Convincing your constituents is bullshit. Let them focus on meaningful change instead of swooning people with twisted words.

I didn't know that you want Twitter to ban Trump...
Why do you think politicians should not talk to voters?

 

[AP90]

Term limits are complete shit. All they do is push out talented people for no reason.

It's a double edge sword as there are prob people in the senate and house who just cruise along or only become truly active if there is a dinosaur like policy they want to try and re-implement.

There are a lot of voters who will just continue voting for the same candidate they have been voting for for the last couple of elections because of disconnect (preoccupied with personal issues) or because something has not directly affected them yet. Or maybe cause they dislike change.

 

[diablos991]

I didn't know that you want Twitter to ban Trump...
Why do you think politicians should not talk to voters?

The president has term limits.

 

[Skellig Gra]

So why is the answer to the fact that you deem they're not full time enough to make the position even less full time than any other job?

You seem to have a problem with money in politics, which isn't something I can argue against, but your solution isn't to actually attack that problem. It is instead this strange roundabout way of getting there by curbing democracy and making the position itself worse off. Shouldn't we just be talking about limits to campaign contributions and campaign finance reform?

All I'm saying is that a public servant position is very different from a private sector job.

In one of my posts I did say there are many issues with the political system and I do agree that limiting big money in politics is a key step.

Is being a teacher not a full time job because they're only in class 180 days a year?

That's bait

 

[numble]

The president has term limits.

The president would still be running for election half the time (or 100% of the time in a 1-term presidency). Why should he be talking to the electorate? Let him focus on meaningful change instead of swooning people with twisted words.

 

[Manmademan]

It's a double edge sword as there are prob people in the senate and house who just cruise along or only become truly active if there is a dinosaur like policy they want to try and re-implement.

There are a lot of voters who will just continue voting for the same candidate they have been voting for for the last couple of elections because of disconnect (preoccupied with personal issues) or because something has not directly affected them yet. Or maybe cause they dislike change.

That's the thing though. The VOTERS decide who is and isn't doing a good enough job to retain them.

If the majority of voters are satisfied enough with the status quo that they vote for the incumbent then congratulations that incumbent met the needs of his or her constituents.

All term limits do is remove the ability of voters to retain people they actually DO like and instead replace them arbitrarily and not on merit.

If you're in favor of "small government" and hate government regulations restricting what private citizens can and can't do then term limits make no sense.

 

[Skellig Gra]

That's the thing though. The VOTERS decide who is and isn't doing a good enough job to retain them.

If the majority of voters are satisfied enough with the status quo that they vote for the incumbent then congratulations that incumbent met the needs of his or her constituents.

All term limits do is remove the ability of voters to retain people they actually DO like and instead replace them arbitrarily and not on merit.

If you're in favor of "small government" and hate government regulations restricting what private citizens can and can't do then term limits make no sense.

Quite the blanket statements there considering how republicans control the House and the Senate so I guess they are just all more qualified and won on merit?. And when did I say I'm in favor of small government?

 

[Hari Seldon]

I'm conflicted. Gaf tells me this is bad but I have met some really, really, really fucking dumb old-ass congressmen. Also maybe we will get some people who are actually aware of the internet.

 

[Saint Gregory]

The plebes keep voting for the wrong people! We must make it impossible for them to do so by setting arbitrary restrictions on who they are permitted to vote for!

I don't disagree with you but if we're not going to set term limits on Congress then I believe that it's time to remove the restriction on the executive office. It's caused an imbalance in the system of checks since Congress just feels as though they can stall and wait out any incumbent that they don't like, as we saw the Republicans do successfully these last 8 years.

 

[JudgeN]

Interesting, always looked at it like the same old career politicians are messing up the country and we needed some fresh young blood to help improves people live. Maybe that would work but it sounds like it wouldn't so we are pretty much stuck in this shit cycle forever.

 

[Manmademan]

Quite the blanket statements there considering how republicans control the House and the Senate so I guess they are just all more qualified and won on merit?. And when did I say I'm in favor of small government?

Gerrymandering issues aside, yes. If the local residents of the district or the state rejected a challenger and elected to keep the republican then that republican served his district well enough to keep that job.

What may be good for them locally may not be great nationally but that's the system we have.

Saying otherwise is simply stating that voters are too stupid to know who to vote for, so you're going to remove their representative in favor of someone random. Which is not only undemocratic it's extremely arrogant.

 

[ahoyhoy]

This may come as a shock, but for all the transparent ladder-climbers and corrupt officials using their influence to lead to big pay outs down the road, there are actually very many career politicians in DC -- both Democrats and Republicans -- who are on the Hill for the sake of performing a public service. There are far more lucrative and less stressful ways to make a living than subjecting yourself to voters and journalists every day for decades, and while there's always a contingent of people in the Senate and the House who are just rotten, there are also many more who -- regardless of your ideological agreements or disagreements with them -- are there to do what they believe is the right thing for their constituents and their country.

With term limits, it's faster and easier to jump on and off the Hill just to build your private-sector or lobbying cred, and those joining Congress who are actually interested in civic service will find their efforts seriously handicapped by constant turnover, which makes policymaking and coalition building much much harder.

But those people could still fulfill roles in public service outside of elected office right?

Non profit work, civic activism, pro Bono law and business advisement, working in local government during off time from Washington, local/federal "lobbying" for public good.

They can use the connections they've made in office to influence remaining elected officials while also forging New connections without the pressure of office.

 

[Iksenpets]

It's a double edge sword as there are prob people in the senate and house who just cruise along or only become truly active if there is a dinosaur like policy they want to try and re-implement.

There are a lot of voters who will just continue voting for the same candidate they have been voting for for the last couple of elections because of disconnect (preoccupied with personal issues) or because something has not directly affected them yet. Or maybe cause they dislike change.

People getting endlessly reelected sucks, for sure, but it's easily preferable to a Congress filled entirely with neophytes who haven't developed any expertise on anything. Congresses with term limits suffer because

1. No one can develop any meaningful expertise, which means everyone is more dependent on the information given to them about the bills under consideration. And who gives congresspeople information on bills? Lobbyists. If a new congressman has no idea what the actual effects of a bill are, and a local business group from his district comes along and tells him it's great, please vote for it, he's probably just going to listen to him.

2. No meaningful relationships can form between congresspeople, so compromise is even more shot than it already is. If everyone in congress is someone new you've barely met, the most important thing becomes party labels. It's the only way to tell who's with whom on any given issue when no one has had time to learn the ideological idiosyncrasies of the other members.

3. When politics can't be a career, it becomes even more of a plaything for the rich. Who is going to run for Congress if it means six years out of your life, and then you have to go back out and find a job again? Only people with enough accumulated wealth that they don't really need a job in the first place. This ties back into number 1, too. When politics can't be a career, who cares what your voters think? The lobbyists tell me this bill is really important, and the voters seem against it, but what's the worst that happens? This becomes a four-year job instead of a six-year one?

 

[Trey]

can we go after lobbying instead? that would be dope.

 

[AngmarsKing701]

It's amazing how many people here fall for this. Here's some links I've pulled in the past about term limits being an awful idea:


Example One






Example two




Example Three






Example Four

With all this potential for corruption from term-limited officials, it's a good thing we have an independent ethics board to review ... oh.

 

[Blader]

All I'm saying is that a public servant position is very different from a private sector job.

....

That's bait

Heh.

But those people could still fulfill roles in public service outside of elected office right?

Non profit work, civic activism, pro Bono law and business advisement, working in local government during off time from Washington, local/federal "lobbying" for public good.

They can use the connections they've made in office to influence remaining elected officials while also forging New connections without the pressure of office.

They could, but these skillsets aren't exactly perfectly transferable; good legislators may not be equally good nonprofit managers or lawyers, for instance. On top of that, if your solution is to have elected officials bounce out of office after a few years, then use their new job to influence their successors, well, then what's the point of getting rid of those guys in the first place? Rather than have Elizabeth Warren serve in the Senate for a couple terms, then force her to leave, take up a different job and use that job to influence newly elected Senator Joe Kennedy, doesn't it just make more sense to keep Warren in office the whole time?

 

[Rentahamster]

Lmfao, Lyin' Ted's subjugation is complete. Dude went from a main rival to bending the knee and introducing legislation that's not even in his own interest (on the surface).

 

[CrocMother]

If term limits were introduced in conjunction with lobbying reforms, that could be ideal. Career politicians bring their own kind of corruption.

 

[BlackLagoon]

I'm guessing quite a few of you don't live in a state where people just vote incumbent because they have experience. Like all an incumbent here has to do is say their opponent has no "real" political experience and they jump 10 points in the polls. They just get elected time after time again and it doesn't really feel like they are representing the interests of the people after a while, but the alternative could be someone who is completely clueless as the incumbent would have you believe.

Then you should look at changing the electoral system that is promoting this, than just an ill-conceived band-aid. Party list proportional representation, or at the very least ranked ballots, would be far better at shaking up the political status quo and giving people real choice in candidates.

 

[ahoyhoy]

Then you should look at changing the electoral system that is promoting this, than just an ill-conceived band-aid. Party list proportional representation, or at the very least ranked ballots, would be far better at shaking up the political status quo and giving people real choice in candidates.

Man I would love that more than term limits.

I guess the fact that we have heard nary a peep about this kind of electoral reform at the federal level means they're even more afraid of that than term limits.

 

[studyguy]

Snowball's chance.

 

[pompidu]

All members of Congress are bought by lobbyists, regardless of time in the government, fresh bodies with new ideas is the way to go.

 

[StrikeNinja24]

Ya know what the majority of the population would be in favor of? Making lobbying illegal. Let's start at the source for once.

 

[RDreamer]

All members of Congress are bought by lobbyists, regardless of time in the government, fresh bodies with new ideas is the way to go.

Again... why is the solution to this problem not to stop the buying of congress but instead to put in people who are more easily bought?

 

[ahoyhoy]

They could, but these skillsets aren't exactly perfectly transferable; good legislators may not be equally good nonprofit managers or lawyers, for instance. On top of that, if your solution is to have elected officials bounce out of office after a few years, then use their new job to influence their successors, well, then what's the point of getting rid of those guys in the first place? Rather than have Elizabeth Warren serve in the Senate for a couple terms, then force her to leave, take up a different job and use that job to influence newly elected Senator Joe Kennedy, doesn't it just make more sense to keep Warren in office the whole time?

You're focusing on the actual idealistic politicians like Warren though. Term limits are aimed at clearing out dead weight or entrenched corrupted officials rather than actually active people like her.

Warren can still influence and help people outside of office, but those she fights against who remain in office hopefully won't get a chance to linger in malaise for decades.

 

[TDLink]

Don't understand the people being negative. Lobbying is already a plague on DC. It -potentially- being slightly worse with term limits doesn't matter and is greatly offset by forcing new people into office. This has a domino effect of actually getting new ideas into congress and also freeing final term legislators to vote the way they want instead of for their "team" since they don't have to worry about re-election.

All members of Congress are bought by lobbyists, regardless of time in the government, fresh bodies with new ideas is the way to go.

Yup exactly.

I don't like Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan or Donald Trump. But if they're all going to support this then maybe it can happen. Most things they do are not things I like, but this one I do. And it's a good thing that can happen.

 

[collige]

I'm conflicted. Gaf tells me this is bad but I have met some really, really, really fucking dumb old-ass congressmen. Also maybe we will get some people who are actually aware of the internet.

This is just ageism tbh. There's nothing preventing younger politicians from being complete idiots wrt technology or just have plain bad intentions. Unless you think the GOP's current anti-security anti-net neutrality stances are a result of pure ignorance?

 

[RDreamer]

Don't understand the people being negative. Lobbying is already a plague on DC. It -potentially- being slightly worse with term limits doesn't matter and is greatly offset by forcing new people into office. This has a domino effect of actually getting new ideas into congress and also freeing final term legislators to vote the way they want instead of for their "team" since they don't have to worry about re-election.

All those tea party congressmen were just full of great new ideas.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

So no different than what's going on in Washington today

Except accelerated, because there would be a clock on when a lawmaker is definitely out of office. Not a hard concept to grasp, really.

 

[Shig]

Truncating terms is a better option than hard cut-off term limits. 4-year and 6-year terms are just too much time to be stuck with a candidate that's gone sour, it's too much leeway for misdeeds to fade and be papered over in the minds of voters. We should have the option to reset every 2 years, across the board.

I would be very in favor of an age cutoff, though, to encourage a steadier stream of new blood. Somewhere around 75 should be the upper limit. It'd be a shame to lose the Bernies, but for every one of them that's right-minded and tries to empathize with the younger generation, there's 15 other codgers who kinda wish negroes still knew their place, who antagonize long-term solutions on things like climate change and keeping social programs solvent because if they're wrong, there's no looming personal consequence to them. They'll be dead when things go tits-up.

The future is grim when the people most affecting it are divorced from having to live in it.

 

[Drakeon]

Don't understand the people being negative. Lobbying is already a plague on DC. It -potentially- being slightly worse with term limits doesn't matter and is greatly offset by forcing new people into office. This has a domino effect of actually getting new ideas into congress and also freeing final term legislators to vote the way they want instead of for their "team" since they don't have to worry about re-election.



Yup exactly.

I don't like Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan or Donald Trump. But if they're all going to support this then maybe it can happen. Most things they do are not things I like, but this one I do. And it's a good thing that can happen.

It's not potentially. We can already see how this has affected states, California instituted term limits way back in the 90s and it made things worse, not better. They recently (ok, not so recently, like 6 years ago) eased up on those term limits to allow for longer terms, which was a step in the right direction.

 

[TDLink]

All those tea party congressmen were just full of great new ideas.

There is potential for short term problems with the tea party taking over the congress thanks to this, but it would also force them out in a decade. Drastically mitigating their damage and any future group like them's damage. I would say that's a positive.

It's not potentially. We can already see how this has affected states, California instituted term limits way back in the 90s and it made things worse, not better. They recently (ok, not so recently, like 6 years ago) eased up on those term limits to allow for longer terms, which was a step in the right direction.

The exact length of the term limit can be debated but having them period is a good thing for the union. Lobbying is another problem that has to be dealt with but we can't expect an amendment to deal with all of the problems the country has in one go. Lobbying first and then term limits for the Legislature would be the ideal order to go in, but I'll take the latter before the former if the alternative is to keep going as we have been.

 

[RDreamer]

The exact length of the term limit can be debated but having them period is a good thing for the union.

[citation needed]

Again, can the people saying term limits are a good thing actually post some real factual data to that effect?

 

[The Technomancer]

There is potential for short term problems with the tea party taking over the congress thanks to this, but it would also force them out in a decade. Drastically mitigating their damage and any future group like them's damage. I would say that's a positive.



The exact length of the term limit can be debated but having them period is a good thing for the union. Lobbying is another problem that has to be dealt with but we can't expect an amendment to deal with all of the problems the country has in one go. Lobbying first and then term limits for the Legislature would be the ideal order to go in, but I'll take the latter before the former if the alternative is to keep going as we have been.

The current GOP has less than 0% interest in curbing lobbying

 

[Fox Mulder]

Don't understand the people being negative. Lobbying is already a plague on DC. It -potentially- being slightly worse with term limits doesn't matter and is greatly offset by forcing new people into office. This has a domino effect of actually getting new ideas into congress and also freeing final term legislators to vote the way they want instead of for their "team" since they don't have to worry about re-election.

No it isn't. Again, this is a feels good idea to people that don't care to look into anything further. There's plenty of examples of how this doesn't work. You just can't fit it on a campaign slogan or Twitter post.