Support NeoGAF

[Sixfortyfive]

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 can't help but think that this might be worse. More frequent elections just means that they'd spend even more of their time campaigning for re-election and less time governing.

 

[TDLink]

[citation needed]

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

I don't have an article to link you, and I don't care enough to spend time to go look for one tbh. I don't think I have to do that though to participate in this conversation or have a valid opinion. Just look at how much corruption there is with Career politicians or how they always are voting for their team because of re-election concerns. Legislators should be there to effect change in the government, not sit on their ass and get rich while making sure nothing happens in Washington.

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

I'm aware of that. They also have 0% interest in doing much of anything positive. That's the great thing about term limits...eventually they would be forced out, allowing new people in who -might- actually care about changing Lobbying or Gerrymandering or other problems in Washington.

Too many people on this board want all or nothing solutions. Yeah lobbying is a problem that needs to be addressed, but most people in both parties are benefiting from it too much atm to actually do anything. It's nice to be idealistic, but it just isn't realistic that some ground will shift there.

Imposing term limits is a good step to fixing that and other problems. By forcing a rotation of people, eventually you'll get a group who does want to diminish the effect of Lobbying.

 

[RDreamer]

I don't have an article to link you, and I don't care enough to spend time to go look for one tbh. I don't think I have to do that though to participate in this conversation or have a valid opinion. Just look at how much corruption there is with Career politicians or how they always are voting for their team because of re-election concerns. Legislators should be there to effect change in the government, not sit on their ass and get rich while making sure nothing happens in Washington.

And this is actually what's wrong with politics in our country now. People voting and having opinions based on feels, not on facts and data.

Career politicians aren't the only one voting for their team, either. Again, the tea party congress, largely a bunch of new people literally elected because they're new, were the most partisan of any we'd seen previously. They were/are completely no compromise on anything.

Imposing term limits is a good step to fixing that and other problems. By forcing a rotation of people, eventually you'll get a group who does want to diminish the effect of Lobbying.

But why? How? What is the mechanism for this? It's been demonstrated that lobbying has more effect on new congressmen. You've produced nothing that says otherwise. So how are we eventually going to get to this rainbow paradise you think could happen? Your solution is basically if you throw enough monkeys at a keyboard eventually one won't be distracted enough and write Shakespeare.... but you want to put only hungry ones in the room.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Just look at how much corruption there is with Career politicians or how they always are voting for their team because of re-election concerns.

Don't ever think that things can't get worse.

 

[Fox Mulder]

I don't have an article to link you, and I don't care enough to spend time to go look for one tbh. I don't think I have to do that though to participate in this conversation or have a valid opinion.

Yeah, an opinion based on feelings over facts is just great.

Not much room for conversation then really.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Term limits are generally a bad idea based off what I've read and heard. But it should be noted many want limits because too many folks are bad at their job and are simultaneously enriching themselves. Obviously a serious problem. To say it's like kicking out a competent doctor after x years is disingenuous when the politician is like a shitty doctor making poor decisions that maim patients.

 

[TDLink]

And this is actually what's wrong with politics in our country now. People voting and having opinions based on feels, not on facts and data.

Career politicians aren't the only one voting for their team, either. Again, the tea party congress, largely a bunch of new people literally elected because they're new, were the most partisan of any we'd seen previously. They were/are completely no compromise on anything.

It's not based on feelings. It is based on what's actually happened. Just because I don't have an article with an excel spreadsheet doesn't mean it's based on nothing. I care about this subject but I also have other things to do in life than spend an hour googling for articles that back up my points. I'm still allowed to participate in the conversation. Stop being condescending.


I know the career politicians aren't the only ones voting for their team, but they still are. Yes the tea party is the main thing that has led to the obstruction during the Obama administration...but all of those career GOPers also voted with them. They don't speak up. Or they do speak up and then vote with the team anyways. This is exactly the problem. And just because the Tea Partiers were bad doesn't mean all new politicians are terrible and should be avoided. There will always be good and bad politicians. People with agendas that are only out for themselves and people who actually want to change the country. Making sure new people consistently get into the legislature is an ultimately good thing because regardless of the people getting in, they aren't in there forever like many of the people in our Senate and House.

Don't ever think that things can't get worse.

Of course they can, but even if they do it's extremely like that eventually they will get better.


Anyways, I've said what I wanted to say on this topic. The insane aggression some posters are having here is ridiculous and conversation stifling.

I hope this amendment happens even though it's coming from politicians I despise.

 

[RDreamer]

Term limits are generally a bad idea based off what I've read and heard. But it should be noted many want limits because too many folks are bad at their job and are simultaneously enriching themselves. Obviously a serious problem. To say it's like kicking out a competent doctor after x years is disingenuous when the politician is like a shitty doctor making poor decisions that maim patients.

The big problem is "bad at their job" and "horrible politicians" can mean very different things to different people. On this forum we all fucking love Elizabeth Warren, but I could find Republican voters that tell you she's a horrible politician and bad at her job in the same way you might think John McCain is or something.

So I keep asking people who say term limits get rid of horrible politicians to define exactly what they mean by that. To figure out how to get rid of horrible politicians first we need to figure out exactly what that is and what that means and then we can get to a solution.

It's not based on feelings. It is based on what's actually happened. Just because I don't have an article with an excel spreadsheet doesn't mean it's based on nothing. I care about this subject but I also have other things to do in life than spend an hour googling for articles that back up my points. I'm still allowed to participate in the conversation. Stop being condescending.

I'm not trying to be condescending and I'm not calling you out specifically. I'm trying to state here that I literally want to see the pro term limit evidence. Because I literally haven't seen any. Research is pretty hilariously one sided on this topic from what I've seen, so I would like someone to present something.

I know the career politicians aren't the only ones voting for their team, but they still are. Yes the tea party is the main thing that has led to the obstruction during the Obama administration...but all of those career GOPers also voted with them. They don't speak up. Or they do speak up and then vote with the team anyways. This is exactly the problem. And just because the Tea Partiers were bad doesn't mean all new politicians are terrible and should be avoided. There will always be good and bad politicians. People with agendas that are only out for themselves and people who actually want to change the country. Making sure new people consistently get into the legislature is an ultimately good thing because regardless of the people getting in, they aren't in there forever like many of the people in our Senate and House.

There's no reasoning here, just "Making sure new people get in is good because it's good." What's the good in having people who don't know how the process works, have made no connections to work across the aisle, and are more easily swayed by lobbyists because they actually do know these things. What's the good in having people who are afraid for their future, not because their bosses (the voters) might oust them for something they might do, but just because they can't have this job in 4 or 6 years or whatever?

 

[collige]

Term limits are generally a bad idea based off what I've read and heard. But it should be noted many want limits because too many folks are bad at their job and are simultaneously enriching themselves. Obviously a serious problem. To say it's like kicking out a competent doctor after x years is disingenuous when the politician is like a shitty doctor making poor decisions that maim patients.

The thing is that there is a already a mechanism designed to remove bad politicians from office. It's called elections.

 

[Dartastic]

While I'm not entirely convinced either way on the idea itself, the time on the limits seen rather on the short side

Agreed. Add one more term in the Senate, two more in the house. However, I can't believe I'm agreeing with something Ted Cruz is proposing.

 

[Neuromancer]

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

A president is a whole different ball game than congress in this argument. The president is pretty much done working for life after they're done. We give them salary and protection for life. That and the prestige guarantees they really don't need to actually work afterwards. You wanna give every congressman a salary for life after one term?

I don't see what these questions have to do with what I asked.

If congressmen are too inexperienced to be of much use in their first couple terms, and too susceptible to outside lobbying because of it, why wouldn't the same concept apply to a president?

 

[Fox Mulder]

Anyways, I've said what I wanted to say on this topic. The insane aggression some posters are having here is ridiculous and conversation stifling.

Gotta love people like you. Get all defensive because people questioned your opinion, provided facts, and asked for the same from you.

But it's others stifling any conversation, not you.

 

[TestOfTide]

I don't think it is necessarily awful. But maybe it should be something like 3-4 senate terms, or 5-6 house terms. Also a rule that prevents politicians from moving from house to senate or vice versa. I also understand the issues that short term limits cause.

It sounds good until you learn that the more experience politicians are actually the ones least vulnerable to suddenly being bought by special interests.

All that term limits does is fill the government with newbies who are easily bought by special interests because they have little to not experience pushing pack against them and don't have the name recognition to make them less vulnerable to primary challenge backed by a shady SuperPAC.

 

[RDreamer]

It sounds good until you learn that the more experience politicians are actually the ones least vulnerable to suddenly being bought by special interests.

All that term limits does is fill the government with newbies who are easily bought by special interests because they have little to not experience pushing pack against them and don't have the name recognition to make them less vulnerable to primary challenge backed by a shady SuperPAC.

Plus writing legislation is legitimately fucking hard. Why do people think Joe Schmoe off the streets can write legislation that delicately weaves through all the possibilities a law might have when it has to affect millions of people? A lot of people just can't write this shit, and that means the lobbyists won't just influence congressmen. They'll literally be writing legislation for them. THat's already happened!

 

[BlastProcessing]

I'm all in favor of term limits...assuming we also can get rid of lobbyists and gerrymandering at the same time.

Without those, I'm not sure it helps.

You can't just get rid of lobbyists. Planned Parenthood are lobbyists. Anything that has ever been or ever will be done to halt climate change is the work of lobbyists.

Lobbies aren't inherently bad. They are just like minded groups of people who realize that they can have a larger effect by aligning. They are functionally similar to unions.

If you remove lobbies then you basically only have large corporations and mega rich individuals that can effect policy.

The problem isn't lobbies, it's a complete lack of accountability. We know exactly what is going on. The politicians aren't really hiding their influences. We just reelect them anyway because nobody votes in primaries and almost nobody votes in midterms.

Term limits would only acaserbate this. It would destroy accountability even further and would cripple the legislative branch.

If you want to see America become a true oligarchy, term limits are the fastest way to get there.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I don't see what these questions have to do with what I asked.

If congressmen are too inexperienced to be of much use in their first couple terms, and too susceptible to outside lobbying because of it, why wouldn't the same concept apply to a president?

Different branches of government. We have over emphasized the power of the president because people want to look to a single leader, but the Legislative us the most powerful and most important part of our democracy. There's a reason why legislative is the first branch outlined in the Constitution.

The President is a glorified babysitter. Congress are the actual parents.

Spoiler

Of course, they have been deadbeat, abusive parents for the last 30 odd years

 

[pompidu]

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?

Because the people who benefit from lobbyists are the ones who wrote the rules. The solution lies within them being decent representatives.

 

[gutter_trash]

weeding out career lobbiests in congressional clothing is a good idea.

but have a bunch n00bs gets constantaly re-introduced into the House needing a learning curve to learn the issues, not a good idea

 

[pompidu]

weeding out career lobbiests in congressional clothing is a good idea.

but have a bunch n00bs gets constantaly re-introduced into the House needing a learning curve to learn the issues, not a good idea

12 years is a long time for a term limit. Presidents only have an 8 year term limit. He has a hell of a more difficult learning curve than a senator.

 

[numble]

12 years is a long time for a term limit. Presidents only have an 8 year term limit. He has a hell of a more difficult learning curve than a senator.

How long do you think it takes for a lawyer to be an expert in a specific field of law, let alone be skilled enough to be a judge? People who practice and interpret the laws that are created.

Now for people that write the laws and propose reforms due to understandings of where there are issues with the law?

 

[cpp_is_king]

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

One of the untouchable parts of the holy grail is the part that says "Hey, if you go through this super complicated obstacle course gauntlet and jump over a few spike pillars, dodge a few rolling boulders, and make it through a few fire pits, you can pass an amendment to change part of the holy grail.

Awful idea

what world do we live in where suddenly term limits are a bad thing? When have they ever been a bad thing before? Can I have a brief list of all the government offices where term limits are good and bad, and an explanation of what makes the offices in the "good" list fundamentally different from the offices in the "bad" list so as to warrant term limits not applying to the bad side?

The thing is that there is a already a mechanism designed to remove bad politicians from office. It's called elections.

Should we also remove term limits for president then too?

 

[Timeaisis]

This is one of those ideas that sounds great to the dumbs, but is awful in reality.

Lobbyists will just really run everything.

Lobbyists already ruin everything. Term limits would buck career politicians at least a little, theoretically.

I don't see how this is just "for the dumb". It's a worthwhile idea to consider.

 

[Biske]

Lobbyists already ruin everything. Term limits would buck career politicians at least a little, theoretically.

I don't see how this is just "for the dumb". It's a worthwhile idea to consider.

It would just shorten their careers and make them even more eager to secure a lobbying gig.

 

[TyrantII]

Imposing term limits is a good step to fixing that and other problems. By forcing a rotation of people, eventually you'll get a group who does want to diminish the effect of Lobbying.

If long term politicians can't build long term, broad coalitions of voters to keep power, they're going to be MORE influenced by big moneyied interests and push short term politically expedient policy.

Term limits do nothing but handicap good politicians and kick them out of the office to give the other team a chance. It does nothing to prevent terrible politicians or terrible policy.

There's a reason why someone the longest serving politicians always seem to get reelected. They mostly all have awesome consituent services both in Washington and in their home state for anyone looking for help. That goes away with term limits, because you don't have time or a need to focus on serving the people. You're 100% focused on winning at any cost.

 

[GuyKazama]

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

There is nothing wrong with amending the Constitution. It has been done many times.

This is never going to pass Congress, but it provides fuel to eventually call for a Constitutional Convention that can amend without Congressional approval. I see this, flag burning, balanced budget, and other amendments being proposed in the next couple years to rally the base in 2018 to go out and vote so that there can be a Constitutional Convention in 2019/2020.

 

[rjinaz]

One of the untouchable parts of the holy grail is the part that says "Hey, if you go through this super complicated obstacle course gauntlet and jump over a few spike pillars, dodge a few rolling boulders, and make it through a few fire pits, you can pass an amendment to change part of the holy grail.



what world do we live in where suddenly term limits are a bad thing? When have they ever been a bad thing before? Can I have a brief list of all the government offices where term limits are good and bad, and an explanation of what makes the offices in the "good" list fundamentally different from the offices in the "bad" list so as to warrant term limits not applying to the bad side?



Should we also remove term limits for president then too?

I actually like the idea somebody else suggested of limiting consecutive terms but not a life long limit. This still allows a shake up but also gives a chance for somebody good at their job to be put in it again if it's the will of the people. And yes i would extend that to the presidency.

 

[Stinkles]

While on the surface this doesn't seem so bad, the cons far outweigh the pros.

Literally a gift to lobbyists who can now prey on eternally junior congress and senate targets with no institutional support. And that's its express purpose. Also extends and amplifies the effectiveness of current gerrymandering machines and vote oppression tactics.


HOWEVER: The primary reason for this is so Ted can continue his "look at me I'm a good guy against big govt" martyrdom PR campaign. Too bad his face is so hatefully punchable he can't get any further.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I'd prefer them to amend the Constitution to eliminate life terms for Supreme Court justices. It makes no sense in a world where the Court does nothing but make shit up to fit a specific partisan view.

 

[RedShift]

The worst part of this is Republicans trying to imply Trump has some huge mandate/majority support despite him losing the popular vote by almost 3 millions votes.

 

[cpp_is_king]

I actually like the idea somebody else suggested of limiting consecutive terms but not a life long limit. This still allows a shake up but also gives a chance for somebody good at their job to be put in it again if it's the will of the people. And yes i would extend that to the presidency.

Yea, that would be good.

 

[SapientWolf]

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.

This measure increases the number of people that will be rotated into office, which in effect, reduces the cost for lobbyists to buy them off. Supply and demand.

 

[Angelus Errare]

The thing is that there is a already a mechanism designed to remove bad politicians from office. It's called elections.

I think most Americans are truly unaware of this or don't care and want someone else to do/fix the issues for them so they don't have to think about it

 

[Dangansona]

Career politicians are actually answerable to their constituents because they have to run for multiple elevations.

And that's putting aside the brain drain you create by dumping policymakers every few years.

But I thought incumbents are rarely voted out. And the ability to remain on Congress' payroll indefinitely seems to me to be a conflict of interest to prevent any meaningful change to the way Congress operates, which the last several years have shown us is in dire need of revision.

 

[Username1198]

thanks for a great explanation.

The problem isn't with the career politicians, the problem is with the politicians that leave public office and then immediately use their stature and connections for powerful lobbyist organizations that work on behalf of the industries. Introducing term limits doesn't make politicians magically less corrupt, it just makes more lobbyists.

Put another way; do you think this is going to help you and me, or Northrop and Lockheed?

Thank you for the explanation, I was a bit confused at first, as it sounds good, but then the zodiac killer is spear heading this so it set off some alarms.

So, is the better thing to do, instead of limiting terms, is to get rid of lobbyist altogether?

 

[B-Dubs]

But I thought incumbents are rarely voted out. And the ability to remain on Congress' payroll indefinitely seems to me to be a conflict of interest to prevent any meaningful change to the way Congress operates, which the last several years have shown us is in dire need of revision.

Except that in practice term limits just increase the amount of corruption and the power of lobbyists. We've seen this in every single state that's implemented them. Every single one.

Thank you for the explanation, I was a bit confused at first, as it sounds good, but then the zodiac killer is spear heading this so it set off some alarms.

So, is the better thing to do, instead of limiting terms, is to get rid of lobbyist altogether?

The problem is not all lobbyists are bad. They fill a specific and needed role in government.

This is a complicated issue without an easy fix. Any attempt at finding some easy idea that will fix things will damage something else as a result.

 

[UCBooties]

Bring it on!

Speed up that revolving door!

More power for lobbyists!

More gridlock and dysfunction!

Everyone hop on, we're going for a Riiiiiiiiiiiiiide!

 

[VendettaRed07]

This will basically be Congressmen literally voting themselves out of office.

I don't see anyone going along with it other than Marco Rubio.

 

[Username1198]

Except that in practice term limits just increase the amount of corruption and the power of lobbyists. We've seen this in every single state that's implemented them. Every single one.



The problem is not all lobbyists are bad. They fill a specific and needed role in government.

This is a complicated issue without an easy fix. Any attempt at finding some easy idea that will fix things will damage something else as a result.

Dammit that's disheartening. I always feel like I'm being fleeced.

 

[SenorArdilla]

Gotta keep on building that swamp somehow.

 

[Blader]

But I thought incumbents are rarely voted out. And the ability to remain on Congress' payroll indefinitely seems to me to be a conflict of interest to prevent any meaningful change to the way Congress operates, which the last several years have shown us is in dire need of revision.

What the last several years has shown us is that Congress fails to get anything done when neither party owns a supermajority in both houses of Congress, and one party is completely devoted to gridlock and obstruction as strategy. None of the problems or elements of Congress from the last few years in need of revision are consequences of uncapped term limits.

I am so tired of people, and especially Republicans, going on about how Washington is broken and how Congress is too dysfunctional to serve the voters. It is broken and dysfunction precisely because the GOP made it that way to keep Obama and the Democratic Party from getting anything done. It's not a structural flaw, it was a tactical decision, and it's completely bullshit that the GOP gets to pretend this is some problem of the system they fell into and will get rid of when they're the ones who laid it themselves.

 

[Fox Mulder]

Lobbyists already ruin everything. Term limits would buck career politicians at least a little, theoretically.

I don't see how this is just "for the dumb". It's a worthwhile idea to consider.

No it isn't. I shouldn't have called people dumb, but they're just falling for an intentionally crafted idea that sounds good at a quick glance.

People hate congress, and the idea of looking deeply into things they vote for. People just don't care and distrust the media and facts, so we'll get the government we deserve.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

How about a constitutional amendment for campaign finance reform (part of which would reverse Citizens United), elimination of lobbying, and elimination of gerrymandering?

 

[Dangansona]

What the last several years has shown us is that Congress fails to get anything done when neither party owns a supermajority in both houses of Congress, and one party is completely devoted to gridlock and obstruction as strategy. None of the problems or elements of Congress from the last few years in need of revision are consequences of uncapped term limits.

In particular I'm one of those people who desperately wants to replace the two party system we are stuck in that requires a supermajority to get anything done only to be undone when the power shifts to the other side next election. That's what I meant. Surely with uncapped term limits that could never be a reality right? That's voting to potentially take more power away from yourself.

How about a constitutional amendment for campaign finance reform (part of which would reverse Citizens United), elimination of lobbying, and elimination of gerrymandering?

With the exception of the elimination of lobbying - because good luck with that - I'll take those amendments instead.

 

[Jeffolation]

Ted Cruz wants this. Ted Cruz. How is that not an enormous red flag from jump street?

Spoiler

TrusTed

 

[Blader]

In particular I'm one of those people who desperately wants to replace the two party system we are stuck in that requires a supermajority to get anything done only to be undone when the power shifts to the other side next election. That's what I meant. Surely with uncapped term limits that could never be a reality right? That's voting to potentially take more power away from yourself.

I don't follow - how does enforcing congressional term limits break the two-party system?

 

[Kaiterra]

Gerrymandering and voter suppression is a million times worse of an issue when it comes to incumbents being able to hold power without serving their constituents.

 

[zelas]

If voters were as smart as they should be and voted for individuals who were even smarter, I could get behind this.

But my ideal isnt reality. Voting across the board for politicians who have no experience governing in Congress or running multiple will just lead to even more people leaning on and being influenced by lobbyists and special interests who know the laws better than them. This is now being proved with Trump.

Not to mention term limited individuals would be voted into to office who will have no reason to be held accountable by the people once voted in. We'd have people bringing in snowballs everyday. The solution needs to be more than term limits alone.

 

[FStubbs]

Sent to die because there is no way in way this will pass regardless of any merit it has.

Hell there's not way in hell any amendment to the Constitution will ever pass ever again.

The Republicans need just one more state house to pass whatever amendments they want IIRC.

 

[Dangansona]

I don't follow - how does enforcing congressional term limits break the two-party system?

I figured that if I'm a Democrat or a Republican in Congress why would I give any third party a platform to challenge my job? It seems to me that it uncapped terms are like lobbying in that it leaves room for self interest and preservation to affect governing. I don't think it guarantees additional parties but maybe it removes one of the many roadblocks.

Also letting the incumbents go could be an opportunity for more independents to win seats. At least they would be facing less of steep hill to climb.

But anyways I've read the thread and overall see the dangers of term limits, at least in the form Cruz is proposing.

 

[UCBooties]

I don't follow - how does enforcing congressional term limits break the two-party system?

It doesn't! It makes the primary system, and thus the party organizers (who don't have term limits) even stronger!