Should Congresspeople have term limits?

Post Reply New Topic

This is addressing the United States government. I found this information about it:

What are the pros and cons to term limits?

Well, if you have a term limit, then one person is only part of the government for a limited number of years. This is good, because you get to see fresh faces in the government, and you can get rid of bad leaders. This is bad, because if good leader's term ends, then he or she might be replaced with a bad leader.
In my opinion, there should be term limits on Congress. We have a term limit on the President, why not Congress? Maybe we could get rid of some of those crazy extremist Republicans. And if we set term limits, Congressmen who are reaching the end of their terms might think about the country's well-being and rise above the political battle, rather than thinking about staying in power. Our Congress sucks right now - if there is anything we can do to improve it without breaking the Constitution, we should do it.
Then again, I'm not sure how term limits could be placed on Congress. I think the Congress would have to vote on it themselves - and a bill dealing with their term limits probably wouldn't pass. *sigh*

It depends - in theory if you have very restrictive term limits - say only one or two terms, then especially in the House of Representatives, the representatives would collectively be relatively inexperienced. Frankly, the way it runs now, where there's lots of people who have been there for several terms, I'm not sure how we could do any worse, but that is the theory, at least. Also, there's the potential to shift power away from the congressmen - already staffers and aides run the place to a large degree - enact severe term limits and professional aides and staffers will be the only ones there with any real experience, which will increase their influence.

On the other hand, enacting term limits, especially term limits that enforce lifetime limits and not just limits for one office, and it may to a degree reduce the influence of lobbyists and campaign contributors, and at least keep some of these guys from putting their own re-election ahead of the good of their constituents. On the other hand, lets be honest, do this and the influence game will just shift from who can buy them with campaign contributions, to who can get them the cushiest private-sector gigs after their term-limit forced exits from public office.

A disadvantage, on paper, is that you're removing power from the hands of the people, in that instead of trusting the people to make wise decisions at the polls, you're changing the rules to take some of that decision-making power away and make part of the choice for them. So in a way, it seems rather un-democratic. But in theory, when just being an incumbent often practically guarantees re-election - well, its an imperfect solution to a pressing problem.

In general, I like them at least in that it tends to get some new blood from time to time. We have them in some parts of California and Los Angeles where I live, and it prevents some of these guys from basically assuming power for life, which overall is a good thing, in my opinion.

The biggest problem is the fact that after election, the number one job of a congressperson is to start taking bribes to pay for the next election in two years. So either they must ban these bribes or have longer terms or both.

A Congressman or Senator with 20 years of service can retire at age 50.

I'll not speak about the American system (by the way, I'm French), but in general. Term limits are adequate for a position like President (for example, in France, the Président de la République now can only serve for two terms). But not really for the deputies or representants in general. It's good to have really experienced deputies or senators, and the best of them (notably those who think of the interests of the country and of the people before their own interests) are already menaced by more opportunistic candidates at elections and by their own rarity, so there is no need to add another obstacle. My favorite French politician has lost his seat at the Assemblée nationale at the last election (while he had had more than 3 millions votes at the Presidential election, but let's not enter the inequalities of the French system, that produce the situation where important parts of the population are not adequately represented). It's very sad, because he is a true statesman, etc. But it would have been eleven times sadder if he had been forced out of office not by a defeat, but by an interdiction to enter his fourth mandate, for example. The French political system would radically change if there were such a limitation (for example, two terms as deputy, and then it's the end). Of course, there is the question of the renewal of the political class, but that one is linked to the elections themselves, by the choices made by the people and by their inclusion or exclusion in the life of political parties, that determine the political landscape of the country pre-elections.
There had been debates during the French revolution (the first one) on this matter. I believe that Robespierre wanted that no deputy could be reelected for the next legislature, but I don't remember if he has said that it was a more general interdiction (-> only one term of deputy in one's life), but he was Robespierre. Others said that such limitations were contrary to the right of the people to choose their deputies as they wish.

This is always the problem with the legislative assemblies. For example, in France, there has been a promise by the two major parties, for at least twenty years, to correct several defaults of the system (for example, the fact that one politician can have too many mandates, but also the problem of finding the adequate representation of all the great political parties in the legislative bodies, through proportionality). It has been a regular promise at presidential elections, but it has always been delayed, because the deputies and the senators themselves won't of course limit some of their privileges. We have one way to circumvent that : the referendum, which would impose to the assemblies some mutations of that kind. My candidate at the presidential election supported a project of referendum that would have "instantly" (in a matter of months) taken care of these problems, but he wasn't elected. Hollande, the actual president, has promised that things would change, and he even said there could be a referendum if there is some kind of obstruction (another promise !)... but the actual situation is that, for the problem of the "cumul des mandats" (being mayor + deputy and things of the kind), there won't be any resolution before 2017 (if the law passes). The deputies of the actual majority had "sworn" that they would themselves stop having several mandates at the same time, and, hum, naive electors believed them. But the fact that the referendum is possible shows that there is hope on this matter. Countries where this is not possible (at least as a "menace"), conversely, might encounter problems in this area...