Thread: Term limits on Senators and members of the House?

The more I study political science, government, history, and my own personal feelings, I repeatedly come to the question of whether Senators and members of the House of Representatives should have stricter limits on their terms.

What would it be like if we only allowed individuals no more than 2-3 terms for both Senate and the House members?

What would it be like if Americans demanded lower pay rates for these servants to our nation as well?

Wouldn't bills and such move faster through the house? Wouldn't secret combinations between well established political figures suffer? Wouldn't corruption dwindle as much as it needs to?

What do you think are the pros and the cons of this? Would this be a good limitation of government?

This debate has been visited many times, but I think you may be right. These people get so entrenched, they become too powerful and learn how to steer power and money to others to get it back to themselves. It's an abuse of power. It becomes a way of life for them.

I think that term limits are a horrible idea.

Why can't people continue voting for who they choose to?

Yes, please. Term limits for everybody.

Hell, I even think we need to put a 20 year limit on SCOTUS.

Since so many people want term limits why do they keep voting for the incumbents election after election? The vote is the term limit. Use it.

Originally Posted by The Wyrd of Gawd

Since so many people want term limits why do they keep voting for the incumbents election after election? The vote is the term limit. Use it.

One reason for this is because the party puts the same person up term after term as their choice. If you want a Democrat (or really any kind of liberal) you have to vote for whichever person the party puts up - which will usually be the incumbent if possible. If you want a Republican (or in many cases any kind of conservative) you have the same problem. So many voters have to choose between an incumbent that matches their values or a nominee that opposes them.

Term limits force the incumbent's party to put up a new nominee, giving voters of the same leaning as the incumbent a chance to vote in a fresh candidate without voting against their political preferences.

In Massachusetts in 1994 the state voted in a referendum to limit the terms of their Congressmen and Senators, but reelected every one of them, including several that would have been forced to leave according to the law.
Since the Supreme Court voted down those state laws it would take a constitutional amendment and guess who votes on that.
I propose such an amendment, with 15-year terms for senators with a limit of two and seven-year terms in the House with a limit of five.
That way senators will consider the right way to vote on things for half their careers and congressmen for one-fifth of their careers.

I don't think that a term limit would be good, but not being able to serve 2 consecutive years in a row, would be better.

The general voting system is fine. But look at the districts that they map out. Totally illogical and ridiculous in shape in order to cover certain areas.

Originally Posted by Kranes56

I don't think that a term limit would be good, but not being able to serve 2 consecutive years in a row, would be better.

If you mean two consecutive terms in a row, I could support that.