5 ms·

There are a lot of people who want term limits. Even for their own candidates. I don't think we were ever supposed to have career congresspeople. That illustra

There are a lot of people who want term limits. Even for their own candidates. I don't think we were ever supposed to have career congresspeople. That illustrates how ridiculous ideas get traction. Term limits are inherently anti-democratic. They don't end entrenched power but move it to unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists. I don't think we were ever supposed to have career congresspeople. The framers of the Constitution imagined wealthy gentleman farmers like themselves alternating positions in power. But term limits wouldn't bring that back, they just make sure that membership in congress would be even more held by the type of person who jump from CEO to congress to Federal bureaucracy and so-forth, reinforcing the "permanent government" situation that already quite strong here.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throw0101a 5y ago
An article that puts forward points why term limits are bad: * https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reasons-to-oppose-congressional-term-limits/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reason... Also: > The democratic peace – the regularity that democracies do not go to war with each other – is one of the most robust findings in political science. This column presents recent research showing that democratic leaders unable to seek another term in office behave like autocrats. Accountability to voters in the next election lies at the heart of the democratic peace. * https://voxeu.org/article/democracy-and-accountability-perverse-effects-term-limits https://voxeu.org/article/democracy-and-accountability-perve...
- Retric 5y ago
  Congress only has collective power, no individual can wage war etc. Yet it’s only the president that has any term limits that’s the opposite of what we should be doing if you’re worried about loose cannons. ~20 year term limits aren’t going to see most members of congress in their last term. However, it would still have real impacts as people aren’t going to end up nearly as complacent. We have 3 members that are currently in office for 40+ years and many on track to reach that point very soon.
Retric 5y ago
If you’re worried about the parties selecting yes men to fill seats then at a mandatory primary. As it stands with gerrymandering we are already in a situation where people get selected by the party and sent to congress without any meaningful voting by the general public. Look up how many congressional seats don’t have any opposition running at all, that’s the antithesis of democracy.
- q1w2 5y ago
  Correct - and term limits would make that situation much worse.
  - Retric 5y ago
    If there are regular primaries, then how are “party leaders” selecting who’s in office? At most it’s through funding campaigns which already happens. Term limits are simply there to empower primaries. People who have already been elected have vast advantages in primaries which means they rarely face any real competition. Put another way winning 20 competitive elections in a row is never going to happen. Which means none of the local members of the party has had any say in who represents them in the election and the opposition party has also had no say for decades. That’s no more democratic than China’s “elections.”
chrismcb 5y ago
I don't think unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists would have more power than they do now. One issue with term limits is that there is some power in trying to get reelected. On the other hand I'm not sure how much that matters considering how hard it is for an incumbent to lose
drewcoo 5y ago
> Term limits are inherently anti-democratic. No more than age limits to be allowed to vote or hold office. Limits don't halt democracy. > membership in congress would be even more held by the type of person who jump from CEO to congress to Federal bureaucracy and so-forth Term limits don't change that. The problems to address are: 1) they are underpaid while in office, 2) they are allowed to act in the interests of their previous industry ties while in office, and 3) when they are out of office they are allowed to profit from having held office. To address #1 pay them ridiculous FU money while in office. And make #2 and #3 very strictly policed, harsh felonies.
wwweston 5y ago
Amen. Also, we have term limits, they’re just not statutory, they’re democratic (and called “elections”).
- taylodl 5y ago
  Bingo!
ryathal 5y ago
Term limits only benefit bureaucrats and lobbyists if you let them. People seem to think that the rules wouldn't change if term limits were introduced, but that is a faulty stating point. Current rules in the House and Senate are arbitrarily complicated and slated towards those who served longer, in a term limited world those rules would likely change to be simpler and grant power faster because no one has 30 years to sit around any more. Serving in congress is always going to be biased towards the rich, but there are plenty of positions besides CEO that would be acceptable to have a 2-15 gap especially for a prestige position. If anything term limits make this better because currently politician is a career that can last for 30+ years, but that would require extreme skill to string together a 30+ year career of 5-15 year limited positions.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

throw0101a 5y ago

An article that puts forward points why term limits are bad: * https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reasons-to-oppose-congressional-term-limits/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reason... Also: > The democratic peace – the regularity that democracies do not go to war with each other – is one of the most robust findings in political science. This column presents recent research showing that democratic leaders unable to seek another term in office behave like autocrats. Accountability to voters in the next election lies at the heart of the democratic peace. * https://voxeu.org/article/democracy-and-accountability-perverse-effects-term-limits https://voxeu.org/article/democracy-and-accountability-perve...

Retric 5y ago
Congress only has collective power, no individual can wage war etc. Yet it’s only the president that has any term limits that’s the opposite of what we should be doing if you’re worried about loose cannons. ~20 year term limits aren’t going to see most members of congress in their last term. However, it would still have real impacts as people aren’t going to end up nearly as complacent. We have 3 members that are currently in office for 40+ years and many on track to reach that point very soon.

Retric 5y ago

If you’re worried about the parties selecting yes men to fill seats then at a mandatory primary. As it stands with gerrymandering we are already in a situation where people get selected by the party and sent to congress without any meaningful voting by the general public. Look up how many congressional seats don’t have any opposition running at all, that’s the antithesis of democracy.

q1w2 5y ago
Correct - and term limits would make that situation much worse.
- Retric 5y ago
  If there are regular primaries, then how are “party leaders” selecting who’s in office? At most it’s through funding campaigns which already happens. Term limits are simply there to empower primaries. People who have already been elected have vast advantages in primaries which means they rarely face any real competition. Put another way winning 20 competitive elections in a row is never going to happen. Which means none of the local members of the party has had any say in who represents them in the election and the opposition party has also had no say for decades. That’s no more democratic than China’s “elections.”

chrismcb 5y ago

I don't think unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists would have more power than they do now. One issue with term limits is that there is some power in trying to get reelected. On the other hand I'm not sure how much that matters considering how hard it is for an incumbent to lose

drewcoo 5y ago

> Term limits are inherently anti-democratic. No more than age limits to be allowed to vote or hold office. Limits don't halt democracy. > membership in congress would be even more held by the type of person who jump from CEO to congress to Federal bureaucracy and so-forth Term limits don't change that. The problems to address are: 1) they are underpaid while in office, 2) they are allowed to act in the interests of their previous industry ties while in office, and 3) when they are out of office they are allowed to profit from having held office. To address #1 pay them ridiculous FU money while in office. And make #2 and #3 very strictly policed, harsh felonies.

wwweston 5y ago

Amen. Also, we have term limits, they’re just not statutory, they’re democratic (and called “elections”).

taylodl 5y ago
Bingo!

ryathal 5y ago

Term limits only benefit bureaucrats and lobbyists if you let them. People seem to think that the rules wouldn't change if term limits were introduced, but that is a faulty stating point. Current rules in the House and Senate are arbitrarily complicated and slated towards those who served longer, in a term limited world those rules would likely change to be simpler and grant power faster because no one has 30 years to sit around any more. Serving in congress is always going to be biased towards the rich, but there are plenty of positions besides CEO that would be acceptable to have a 2-15 gap especially for a prestige position. If anything term limits make this better because currently politician is a career that can last for 30+ years, but that would require extreme skill to string together a 30+ year career of 5-15 year limited positions.