5 ms·

I agree. For this "tribal" reason of picking a party I've been more inclined to have term limits on Congress.

hannasanarion 7y ago
Term limits in congress aren't really a good thing though. We have term limits for President because the President is uniquely powerful, they can almost unilaterally bend the aparatus of government to their will. If allowed to rule for too long, a president can easily become a dictator. The same is not true of a congressperson who weilds 1/535th of the power of a branch. Besides, if the people want to put someone in office, shouldn't they be allowed to? Isn't that Democracy 101?
- cjslep 7y ago
  Career congresspersons are beholden to those that secure their reelection. That's the current steady state system we have now. Term limits forces that dynamic to no longer apply to the final term, which frees congresspeople from this dynamic for at least one term. It also forces clearer the revolving door between the private sector and politics as then the no-longer congressperson gets hired into a company.
  - hannasanarion 7y ago
    >Career congresspersons are beholden to those that secure their reelection Yeah, those people are called "voters". That's how it's supposed to work. We want congresspeople to feel beholden to them. > It also forces clearer the revolving door between the private sector and politics as then the no-longer congressperson gets hired into a company. Isn't this just motivation for more cronyism? You're basically arguing that the last term of any congressperson should be spent working for a company instead of the people.
    - cjslep 7y ago
      > Yeah, those people are called "voters". That's how it's supposed to work. We want congresspeople to feel beholden to them. No it's not. It's to the people with money which let's them get to the voters. Because otherwise that money is going to an alternate candidate that plays ball. Have you ever wondered where the blue-collar Democrats of the 1970's went, for example? Businesses and those with money instead financing better campaigns in return for business representation, won. It's why both Democrats and Republicans have generally represented corporate interests since Reagan. > Isn't this just motivation for more cronyism? No, it's motivation for making the existing cronyism even more transparent. Or, incentivizing those who did their terms to return to the communities they helped represent and move on with their non-political life.
      - hannasanarion 7y ago
        So if your real problem is with money in politics, why not get money out of politics instead of targeting this weird, roundabout, more difficult to implement, and antidemocratic method that may not have any actual impact on the problem?
        cjslep 7y ago
        > weird Term limits already exist for other positions. It is not a strange concept. > roundabout My problem is not with "money in politics", it is with career politicians. > more difficult to implement Forgive my laughter, setting a term limits is way easier than your abstract idealism of removing money from politics. > antidemocratic Everyone can still vote and is still emancipated. The America after the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution is no less a Representative Democracy than before. I'm all for honest and open discussion but it is clear this is not one of them.
    - a_c_s 7y ago
      No, they are beholden to whomever can help them raise enough money for re-election. It is far easier to have 1-2 industries you make happy and can write you a big check every 2 or 6 years than reaching out to raise grassroots support from thousands of individual voters.
    - Jorge1o1 7y ago
      It turns out that merely repeating the name of a candidate over and over again alongside some platitude or glittering generality is remarkably effective in gaining voters. But TV ads are expensive, hence the several million dollars each candidate spends every election cycle.
  - jcadam 7y ago
    Make service in the House work more like jury duty. Everyone living in a district who meets the minimum requirements (age, etc) has their name thrown into a lottery. Representatives get selected randomly and have to serve for one session, then they go home. Oh, and have Senators be appointed by state governments again, like they used to be.
- YesProcrast 7y ago
  I have come to appreciate the wisdom of the Virginia governor's term-limiting system -- you can hold office as many times as you want, but you cannot succeed yourself. Voters can restore someone to office, but each term must stand alone, avoiding the, "What does every first-term President want? A second term." problem.
  - zerocrates 7y ago
    A limit system based just on non-consecutiveness is gamed pretty easily: look at Dmitry Medvedev's term as Russian president.
jdpedrie 7y ago
Pick your poison. I live in a state with strong term limits on the state legislature (MI), and it has huge problems too. The large turnover means a dearth of institutional experience. So much of legislative power depends on the few legislators who are strong and smart enough to wield it. One thinks of Henry Clay, or Ted Kennedy, or Robert Byrd, or Mitch McConnell. Regardless of your thoughts on them, they were long-time legislators who cared about protecting the power of their institution and were wily enough to do it. The power to make laws is going to go somewhere. If the legislature won't or can't accept it, it'll end up in the bureaucracy (admittedly a huge problem with out non-term limited national Congress, though for different reasons), or in the case I'm familiar with, by executive fiat and outside groups and lobbyists.

Term limits in congress aren't really a good thing though. We have term limits for President because the President is uniquely powerful, they can almost unilaterally bend the aparatus of government to their will. If allowed to rule for too long, a president can easily become a dictator. The same is not true of a congressperson who weilds 1/535th of the power of a branch. Besides, if the people want to put someone in office, shouldn't they be allowed to? Isn't that Democracy 101?

cjslep 7y ago
Career congresspersons are beholden to those that secure their reelection. That's the current steady state system we have now. Term limits forces that dynamic to no longer apply to the final term, which frees congresspeople from this dynamic for at least one term. It also forces clearer the revolving door between the private sector and politics as then the no-longer congressperson gets hired into a company.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  >Career congresspersons are beholden to those that secure their reelection Yeah, those people are called "voters". That's how it's supposed to work. We want congresspeople to feel beholden to them. > It also forces clearer the revolving door between the private sector and politics as then the no-longer congressperson gets hired into a company. Isn't this just motivation for more cronyism? You're basically arguing that the last term of any congressperson should be spent working for a company instead of the people.
  - cjslep 7y ago
    > Yeah, those people are called "voters". That's how it's supposed to work. We want congresspeople to feel beholden to them. No it's not. It's to the people with money which let's them get to the voters. Because otherwise that money is going to an alternate candidate that plays ball. Have you ever wondered where the blue-collar Democrats of the 1970's went, for example? Businesses and those with money instead financing better campaigns in return for business representation, won. It's why both Democrats and Republicans have generally represented corporate interests since Reagan. > Isn't this just motivation for more cronyism? No, it's motivation for making the existing cronyism even more transparent. Or, incentivizing those who did their terms to return to the communities they helped represent and move on with their non-political life.
    - hannasanarion 7y ago
      So if your real problem is with money in politics, why not get money out of politics instead of targeting this weird, roundabout, more difficult to implement, and antidemocratic method that may not have any actual impact on the problem?
      - cjslep 7y ago
        > weird Term limits already exist for other positions. It is not a strange concept. > roundabout My problem is not with "money in politics", it is with career politicians. > more difficult to implement Forgive my laughter, setting a term limits is way easier than your abstract idealism of removing money from politics. > antidemocratic Everyone can still vote and is still emancipated. The America after the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution is no less a Representative Democracy than before. I'm all for honest and open discussion but it is clear this is not one of them.
  - a_c_s 7y ago
    No, they are beholden to whomever can help them raise enough money for re-election. It is far easier to have 1-2 industries you make happy and can write you a big check every 2 or 6 years than reaching out to raise grassroots support from thousands of individual voters.
  - Jorge1o1 7y ago
    It turns out that merely repeating the name of a candidate over and over again alongside some platitude or glittering generality is remarkably effective in gaining voters. But TV ads are expensive, hence the several million dollars each candidate spends every election cycle.
- jcadam 7y ago
  Make service in the House work more like jury duty. Everyone living in a district who meets the minimum requirements (age, etc) has their name thrown into a lottery. Representatives get selected randomly and have to serve for one session, then they go home. Oh, and have Senators be appointed by state governments again, like they used to be.
YesProcrast 7y ago
I have come to appreciate the wisdom of the Virginia governor's term-limiting system -- you can hold office as many times as you want, but you cannot succeed yourself. Voters can restore someone to office, but each term must stand alone, avoiding the, "What does every first-term President want? A second term." problem.
- zerocrates 7y ago
  A limit system based just on non-consecutiveness is gamed pretty easily: look at Dmitry Medvedev's term as Russian president.

jdpedrie 7y ago

Pick your poison. I live in a state with strong term limits on the state legislature (MI), and it has huge problems too. The large turnover means a dearth of institutional experience. So much of legislative power depends on the few legislators who are strong and smart enough to wield it. One thinks of Henry Clay, or Ted Kennedy, or Robert Byrd, or Mitch McConnell. Regardless of your thoughts on them, they were long-time legislators who cared about protecting the power of their institution and were wily enough to do it. The power to make laws is going to go somewhere. If the legislature won't or can't accept it, it'll end up in the bureaucracy (admittedly a huge problem with out non-term limited national Congress, though for different reasons), or in the case I'm familiar with, by executive fiat and outside groups and lobbyists.