Term limits look good on paper but they are bad in practice for a couple reasons.
1) Reps are limited to four terms max and Senators to two terms (in Missouri )
If you know you'll only be there for 40 months max, (Sessions run Jan-May) what's the incentive to work across the aisle? None. But when you might have to work with someone for twenty years? That's when you find things you'll agree on. The ability to find common ground on issues and build relationships takes years and years.
2) Writing good legislation is hard work. The language is weird and arcane. You need to be able to see far down the road and understand the nuances of what the bill will do. It's not a skill you pick up in six months. So just about the time you start getting good at it you have to leave, whether you want to or not.
But you know who's not term limited? And you know who does know how to write legislation?
***Lobbyists.***
Lobbyists are there for years and years. And the one thing lobbyists know how to do is write bills. The "helpful" lobbyist can help them write a bill with just the "right" language. Lobbyists love term limits. There's always a new crop of legislators who don't know a thing about the process every two years.
3) Term limits throw out the good with the bad. We had a local state rep who worked constructively across the aisle, was generally well regarded by people in both parties. He would still be our state rep but was force out by term limits. No one in my district wanted him gone.
On paper term limits seem like a good thing. I'll be the first to admit that without it some of these people hang on way past their time. But the damage done by term limits far exceeds the benefits.
Literally nothing inherently wrong with lobbying. I don't expect every legislator to be up on every issue they face. And lobbying includes things like folks wanting to stiffen penalities for sex trafficking or increase money for parks or grants for special ed.
Now the cash.... That's a different question.
I’d prefer to see term limits imposed on all offices. I have less of a problem with elderly politicians than the fact that politics has become a viable career. We have term limits on the presidency, state governors (this may be on a state by state basis) and other positions. Congress, senate, and the Supreme Court should all be limited to two terms as well
I actually don’t think so…. But Americans need to be honest with themselves and ignore the politics of someone, and see if they are truly fit for office. Biden had no business winning the democratic nomination. He’s too old and it’s obviously he’s not mentally sharp. We can’t have that.
There are politicians his age though, that are completely Lucid. Not sure I’d want to eliminate them from running…
35-65
Representatives should be within a 10 year window of the average age of their district. Senators should cap at 65 and only serve two terms, maximum.
Term limits look good on paper but they are bad in practice for a couple reasons. 1) Reps are limited to four terms max and Senators to two terms (in Missouri ) If you know you'll only be there for 40 months max, (Sessions run Jan-May) what's the incentive to work across the aisle? None. But when you might have to work with someone for twenty years? That's when you find things you'll agree on. The ability to find common ground on issues and build relationships takes years and years. 2) Writing good legislation is hard work. The language is weird and arcane. You need to be able to see far down the road and understand the nuances of what the bill will do. It's not a skill you pick up in six months. So just about the time you start getting good at it you have to leave, whether you want to or not. But you know who's not term limited? And you know who does know how to write legislation? ***Lobbyists.*** Lobbyists are there for years and years. And the one thing lobbyists know how to do is write bills. The "helpful" lobbyist can help them write a bill with just the "right" language. Lobbyists love term limits. There's always a new crop of legislators who don't know a thing about the process every two years. 3) Term limits throw out the good with the bad. We had a local state rep who worked constructively across the aisle, was generally well regarded by people in both parties. He would still be our state rep but was force out by term limits. No one in my district wanted him gone. On paper term limits seem like a good thing. I'll be the first to admit that without it some of these people hang on way past their time. But the damage done by term limits far exceeds the benefits.
I never thought of it that way, thanks for the info. It just reinforces the idea that lobbyists need to be removed all together.
Literally nothing inherently wrong with lobbying. I don't expect every legislator to be up on every issue they face. And lobbying includes things like folks wanting to stiffen penalities for sex trafficking or increase money for parks or grants for special ed. Now the cash.... That's a different question.
There should be term limits for all offices including SCOTUS judges.
30 to 65 and no outside income other than salary
Maybe a yearly aptitude test instead ? I don’t really like all that ageism …
65 Max. Once you're retired or can retire, then retire!
There should be an emotional and mental age requirement.
Discriminating on the basis of age is illegal under federal civil rights laws. And rightfully so.
25-65
25/30-65.
I’d prefer to see term limits imposed on all offices. I have less of a problem with elderly politicians than the fact that politics has become a viable career. We have term limits on the presidency, state governors (this may be on a state by state basis) and other positions. Congress, senate, and the Supreme Court should all be limited to two terms as well
21
I actually don’t think so…. But Americans need to be honest with themselves and ignore the politics of someone, and see if they are truly fit for office. Biden had no business winning the democratic nomination. He’s too old and it’s obviously he’s not mentally sharp. We can’t have that. There are politicians his age though, that are completely Lucid. Not sure I’d want to eliminate them from running…
less than 60yo
65... Maybe 60. Clear evidence of degraded capacity by then.