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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pinto

(106,886 posts)
Sun May 18, 2014, 04:41 PM May 2014

I've never supported term limits, especially at the federal level.

In my view, term limits are already in place - elections. That's the process we "hire" representatives. That ought to be the process we hire replacements. Not some arbitrary calendar determination.

We have these tools - Primaries and general elections. District wide and state wide. Nationally, as well, for that matter.

What is the purpose of term limitations? Have they benefited our political process?

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

northoftheborder

(7,572 posts)
1. I agree, and always have believed it.
Sun May 18, 2014, 04:44 PM
May 2014

Experience and knowledge come with time; why throw that out arbitrarily.

SharonAnn

(13,772 posts)
18. If we only have newcomers in office, lobbyists will totally rule - all the time.
Tue May 20, 2014, 06:02 PM
May 2014

Not that they don't do it now, but it will be even worse.

They know how the "levers of power" work and how to use them to their advantage.

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
3. I don't either, however... This would be Reagan's ninth term...
Sun May 18, 2014, 04:51 PM
May 2014

...even if he was just a brain, floating preserved in a glass jar.

Hippo_Tron

(25,453 posts)
12. I don't buy that, nor do I buy that Clinton would've been a 4 term President
Mon May 19, 2014, 01:38 AM
May 2014

No matter how charismatic the leader is, voters eventually get tired of the party in power and vote for someone else. The combined events of the depression and World War II were the biggest crisis in the nation's history, save for the Civil War. Only under these extraordinary circumstances did FDR get elected to 4 terms.

Reagan would've been a 3 term President and Clinton might've been as well. Rarely, if ever, would you see anybody get more than 3 terms.

Warpy

(111,254 posts)
4. I would like to see cognitive testing added to the physical they take once a year.
Sun May 18, 2014, 05:16 PM
May 2014

It would have prevented travesties like Strom Thurmond being carted in and having his minders tell him how to vote.

It would get men with obvious OMD out of office. Scalia would go.

Justice William O. Douglas would have stayed to the end, he was sharp as a tack.

Cognitive testing is not IQ testing. It's very different and it's over in 5 minutes. You will be tested by any doctor worth the initials when you're over 65. So should public officials.

former9thward

(31,997 posts)
7. Douglas had dementia at the end.
Sun May 18, 2014, 07:59 PM
May 2014

He wrote an embarrassing opinion where he asserted a tree or swampland or even the air has the right to sue the government. Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).

After that opinion Douglas' colleagues on the court, both liberal and conservative, decided to not hear cases where he might be the deciding vote. They decided to hear them after he either retired or died. After he did retire he attempted to come back to the court to issue opinions. Clerks and other staff were ordered not to speak to him in order to keep him away. A sad end...

Warpy

(111,254 posts)
8. Yes, it was. It would have been kinder to remove him at the end
Sun May 18, 2014, 08:57 PM
May 2014

over a failed physical.

He still might have forgotten he'd retired, dementia is like that.

 

Leme

(1,092 posts)
5. not quite sure on this...take with suspicion
Sun May 18, 2014, 05:35 PM
May 2014

The PACs, think tanks, special interests do not have term limits. They are the ones that supply most of the information/ wording for the laws. They give them to staffers who pass them to the elected .
-
Term limits means they have to spend more money to re-connect with a new representative usually, unless they are already on the payroll.

struggle4progress

(118,282 posts)
10. They certainly don't benefit the process in the legislature:
Mon May 19, 2014, 01:13 AM
May 2014

they simply ensure that legislatures are always relatively uninformed and hence better targets for the lobbyists who are there year after year

Hippo_Tron

(25,453 posts)
11. Yep, term limits are a fucking disaster on the state level
Mon May 19, 2014, 01:32 AM
May 2014

I understand the sentiment. The average age of congresscritters is as a higher if not higher than it's ever been. It's tempting to believe that getting new blood in there will change everything. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Johonny

(20,841 posts)
15. That's been my experience
Mon May 19, 2014, 06:53 PM
May 2014

The most experienced people end up being the Lobbyists.

Fixing the problem of the lazy uninformed voter with term limits that remove good people from office just because... seems ill advised.

mazzarro

(3,450 posts)
13. I am now more for term limit than before.
Mon May 19, 2014, 05:11 AM
May 2014

For one, I see a selfish side to this in that so many of the law makers end up becoming rich, if not wealthy, after their stint as legislators. So term limit allows for more people to rotate through the system and spread the gravy to larger number if the population.
Second, even with the so much professed power to fire by electorate, what percentage of the obvious non performing legislators get voted out? I will say "damn too few of them". Clearly gerrymandering has forestalled whatever good that could come from the voters.
Third term limit, especially, for the SC will limit the damages of judges like Scalia and Thomas can inflict on society.
And there other reasons as well.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,412 posts)
14. I have generally been much against term limits
Mon May 19, 2014, 12:48 PM
May 2014

However I am concerned that they might be a more welcome development in regards to the super-gerrymandering that has occurred in some districts that make it damned near impossible for some incumbents to be voted out. Plus, with the dramatic advantages some incumbents hold in regards to campaign financing, it also makes it harder for anybody else to make inroads. I personally dislike the idea that some incumbents are so well-protected that they, not the voters, essentially decide when they are going to leave. That too seems largely undemocratic too.

 

certainot

(9,090 posts)
17. getting the money out will fix most of that. i think term limits
Mon May 19, 2014, 08:46 PM
May 2014

will give the money a better chance to plan ahead for seats they know will be opening.

 

certainot

(9,090 posts)
16. term limits is a RW attempt to get more bang for their bucks
Mon May 19, 2014, 08:43 PM
May 2014

knowing when a particular politician HAS to go means the billionaires and their party and their think tanks can plan WAY ahead

and it appeals (but not solely) to the lazy and apathetic.

get the money out and the quality of reps and candidates will skyrocket

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I've never supported term...