Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Election Reform

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)

12. For U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, it would require a constitutional amendment...

Reply to hrmjustin (Original post)

Sat Sep 29, 2012, 02:44 AM

Sep 2012

States can do it if they want, but it has real problems.

If you have an effective elected representative, why would you want to term limit that person?

Term limits destroy institutional memory so that you constantly have a new crop of ignorant newbies who are never sure just what has been tried and what hasn't.

As instituted in California, it didn't really remove career politicians, just rotated them through various offices. Their expertise was lost, because they went on to a new job.

Term limits go hand n hand with the theory that government should not be a full job. But in the modern world, everything is too complex for that to be workable in most places.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

29 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Anyone have any thoughts on term limits? [View all] hrmjustin Sep 2012 OP

Any level of government? Kennah Sep 2012 #1

yes hrmjustin Sep 2012 #4

It used to seem important to me, but today it's a distant issue at best Kennah Sep 2012 #14

I think it is something that we should at least have a debate about in congress and the media. n/t hrmjustin Sep 2012 #15

I am not sure it matters. DURHAM D Sep 2012 #2

I'm against them. They would put lobbyists in charge. Elections do work if you vote. Viva_Daddy Sep 2012 #3

They're not in charge now? n/t Smarmie Doofus Sep 2012 #5

It's the only way to get rid of career Congressmen and Senators with ultra-safe seats bluestateguy Sep 2012 #6

I would support term limits, but with longer terms Scootaloo Sep 2012 #8

i'm with you 100% on that antigop19667 Jan 2013 #21

Not a fraction as important as (1) campaign reform and (2) return to paper voting. nt valerief Sep 2012 #7

I'm not sure this 5/4 SCOTUS would ever let it stand. Smarmie Doofus Sep 2012 #9

I'm actually against them. eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 #10

I am against them, entirely. longship Sep 2012 #11

For U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, it would require a constitutional amendment... Agnosticsherbet Sep 2012 #12

No- no term limits. In term-limited California, the lobbyists are the mentors for the newly elected NBachers Sep 2012 #13

that is a great point about ted hrmjustin Sep 2012 #16

Spam deleted by NRaleighLiberal (MIR Team) TheNaimSadik Oct 2012 #17

I used to think they were a great idea daveMN Nov 2012 #18

01/04/2013: A bill proposing we repeal the constitutional limit on the number of Presidential terms Howzit Jan 2013 #19

If we had a democracy, I'd be against them. Stevepol Jan 2013 #20

We must have a term and 1 family person limit for each person elected to office; no dictatorships. WilliamTuckness Jun 2014 #22

I don't agree with limitations on families but I think two terms in the Senate and 6 terms in hrmjustin Jun 2014 #23

I like 2 terms in Senate limit and 6 terms in House limit; prohibit families from taking over. WilliamTuckness Jun 2014 #24

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2014 #25

Absolutely AGAINST Term Limits ... Trajan Jun 2014 #26

Term limits mean that right around the time SheilaT Jun 2014 #27

I go back and forth on them Prophet 451 Jun 2014 #28

Against. for many of reasons already listed. northoftheborder Jun 2014 #29