Term Limits, Yes or No?

[picus9]

I say yes. at least on a state level, it allows more people to become involved in politics and it helps to reduce cronyism.

[Atman]

1. We have term limits

Elections.

Take the money out of the process, not the voters.

[Catch22Dem]

2. I don't mean to condescend

But elections take money out of the process??? How?

[Atman]

4. Huh?

No...elections can and should take bad politicians out of the process.

Money allows them to stay in past their prime. You misread...don't eliminate the voter's right to choose who he or she wants to vote for. Eliminate the candidate's abiilty to buy their way back into their seat year after year...massive corporate contributions that squelch any opposition through shear domination of the media.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. Your First Post Was Confusing

I understand now. And i agree. Your first post made it seem like not having term limits would get the money out of the system.

Rather, you were saying that term limits are unnecessary if we get the money out of the system.

I completely agree, but i read it the same way as Catch22 did, the first time.
The Professor

[Catch22Dem]

13. The prof is right...and I apologize

I read it as "elections take money out of the process." One sentence. My mistake. You are 100% correct.

[picus9]

3. Elections are the same as term limits?

I don't see the connection. There wouldn't be as much money in elections if there were term limits. How is somebody supposed to run a campaign against an embedded politician when that politician is on so many people's bankroll. It is a cycle, you can't have one without the other. If people were only allowed to serve for 2 or three terms then there wouldn't be as much as an incentive to buy them out.

[private_ryan]

17. what % of them keeps getting re-elected by $$ and redistricting tricks?

Last time I heard it was in the 90%...some term limits.

[yellowcanine]

18. my response also

The whole idea of "term limits" was always a redundancy. If it is a term the limit is already set. Voters should decide if a politician should get another term - including the president, by the way. All term limits do is create lame duck politicians. The only reason we have a two term limit on the presidency is because Republicans resented the success of FDR. Does anyone believe that we would have been better off if FDR had been prevented from running for a third term in 1940?

[SheilaT]

19. Elections themselves hardly

amount to any kind of term limits.

Here in Kansas in 2002 Republican Senator Pat Roberts had no opponent. In 2004 the other Republican Sam Brownback will probably also have no opponent. Why bother to hold an election? Just appoint those men Senator For As Long As They Want and be done with it?

I'm appalled that there's no Democrat of any kind in this state willing to mount a token campaign, no matter how feeble.

[TahitiNut]

5. Two birds with one stone.

Deal with the underlying problem that has given rise to both 'campaign finance reform' and 'term limits': the power of incumbancy and elected politicians 'for sale'.

Strictly prohibit any elected or appointed government official from engaging in any fund-raising activity or compensated activity other than those strictly related to the duties of their office.

At one time, it was not at all unusual for officers of corporations to be so prohibited under the terms of their employment contracts. In governance, it's an inherent conflict of interest. When one is in public service, self-service is a conflict of interest. All campaign activities for incumbants should be conducted in a 'blind trust' subject to intense oversight -- and the incumbant candidate should be prohibited from engaging in their own campaign unless they resign from office some number of days (60?) prior to engaging in any such activities. This would go for both reelection and election to another office.

We would, in effect, distinguish between 'public citizens' and 'private citizens'. "Public service" should mean exactly that.

[ProfessorGAC]

12. It's Gets My Vote

That would be my approach too! Just ban the "electioneering" of fund raising while in office. That also means that legislators have to spend their time legistlating, and not sucking up to the monied interests.

The Professor

[TahitiNut]

14. I think we both appreciate 'elegant' solutions.

(In the mathematical sense.) Ever since this occurred to me a few years ago, I've been somewhat appalled that such an obvious and simple approach hasn't been entertained in public discourse. It seems to me that it's very synergistic with Constitutional prohibitions on 'emoluments' and 'titles' -- showing a clear understanding of the inherent conflicts of interest.

[PSR40004]

6. Every state should either have them or not..

IMO not doing it across the board means some select states have more power then others.

Overall I'm against them.

[oldcoot]

7. No to term limits

People should be able to vote for the candidate of their choice at the state and local level. If my elected officials are competent and ethical, they should be able to keep their jobs. No one would favor firing a doctor because he or she has practiced medicine for a certain period in time (unless the doctor is no longer mentally competent), so why should a politician be automatically disqualified for the same reason?

I also do not believe that term limits will allow more people to become involved in politics. I believe that a lack of funds and a lack of interest are bigger problems. It is not unusual to have only one candidate running for certain local positions in my area. Clearly, the absence of term limits does not discourage people from running for office in my community.

[BeatleBoot]

8. No

And if it were true, we'd be in the 3rd term of Clinton's presidency.

And 3 million people would still have jobs.

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. No

We have term limits in Florida and it's been a disaster. The repugs were all for it when the dems were in power. Now the repugs are in power instead. Of course, now that they are in power some of them want to get rid of term limits. But either way the damage has been done.

[DoYouEverWonder]

15. Actually, let me modify that answer

Only if you live in a state that currently is under Republican control.

[picus9]

23. Why is it a disaster - on a fundemental level? - devil's advocate

Political parties aside, why is it a disaster, would you say it was a disaster if your party was in there?

[DoYouEverWonder]

24. The final session when everyone was losing

their seats was a free for all. A lot of legislation that would never seen the light of day otherwise was pushed through and everyone was giving away the store in order to pad the nest for the high paying jobs their corporate buddies would give them when they were out of office. In the case of Florida, the next election brought in a majority of repugs who seem to live for today and could care less about tomorrow, they won't be around and they are more than willing to do Jeb's bidding. Now we have a legislature that is willing to over throw the results of a presidential election and who have made Jeb a higher authority over your own doctor when making life/death decisions. Some of this would have happened either way, but term limits certainly paved the way for Jeb to grant himself unprecedented powers.

[beyurslf]

11. No term limits

I agree with taking the money out so an incumbent can't "buy" his seat.

The President needs term limits though. The power to stack the Supreme Court would be too great if a President could stay in office unlimited.

Sure Clinton could have been re-elected. Reagan could have been as well, though.

[Selwynn]

16. Ideally? No. In an utterly corrupt and un-democratic system? YES.

The latter is what we have, therefore yes.

[Atman]

20. The Dems need to ask Bush where he stand now

Was he in favor of term limits in 00? If he is not now, that should be asked, and the hypocrisy pointed out.

Oh, wait...I'm sorry...this is reality, isn't it? Bush will get a pass on this, too.

[Skittles]

21. NO

if the people want them out THEY CAN VOTE THEM OUT.

[cyclezealot]

22. Term limits have been a disaster everywhere

Never has money been more crucial and partianship more rampant.
By the time a legislator learns the ropes he/she is out. There have been cases where name recognition has given a legislator the ability to stand up to moneied lobbyists. With less name recognition a candidate is even more dependent upon money. Not allowing legislators to rise through committee's is a way to deny our country the ability to develope statesmen.. Do you think Winston Churchill or Sen. Everett Dirksen would have accomplished what they did, if they could have only served 12 years.