Term Limits - Good or Bad?

[NY94J30]

I'm on the fence on this one. Generally, however, I believe that the fundamentals of democracy lie in the electoral process and the choice of the people in the voting booth, and that in most cases elections are the reflection of that. I think that a far better place to begin reforms is in the realm of campaign finance.

Some questions, however:

Are term limits consistent with electoral democracy or are they counter-majoritarian? Do we at times need counter-majoritarianism? Do entrenched incumbents grow too complacent or too comfortable with the monied interest? Would the introduction of term limits in Congress create too many starts and stops in policy debates as key players are term limited out? Do you lose accountability in the last years of a lame duck term?
Modified by NY94J30 at 11:30 AM 10/27/2008

[96Qowner]

BAD.

We should not be disqualifying the best, most experienced candidates. If the electorate insists on being stupid, so be it. No one forces us to reelect people we don't want in office. By the same token, we shouldn't be prevented from electing the candidate we want.

[Jesda]

Term limits exist in the voting booth.

[HashiriyaS14]

Term limits exist in the voting booth.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Of course, if we didn't have term limits, Bill Clinton would probably be re-inhabiting the White House in January of 2009, lol.

I DO understand the argument for term limits, that being that getting re-elected and serving the needs of the populace aren't always aligned as perfectly as they should be. I do NOT think that term limits are a good solution to this divergence, however I do agree that the divergence warrants attention and possible changes to our political process.

EDIT: To put a point on it, the kind of widespread government shrinkage that Jesda and I would both like to see is rendered impossible by the way we elect our leaders. The "not in my backyard" mentality will make large spending cuts infeasible so long as people are willing to tolerate cuts everywhere but their own districts.

[NY94J30]

If term limits exist in the voting booth, then should we reexamine the requirement that the POTUS be a natural born citizen?

I, personally, don't feel that a native-birth provides any particular insight or exclusive qualification, it seems to me anachronistic (insomuch as the purpose of this provision was to prevent Alexander Hamilton from being president by many accounts) and nativist to no true end.

Another question, would legislative term limits help to provide consensus on present day third-rail issues? Or at least give cause to broach such issues?

This I think is a mixed bag, as limits would likely be staggered, making consensus difficult. Though, it would seem that as issues that have been back-burnered could be broached, the dialogue which had been stifled could progress.

[smockers83]

There is an argument for term limits, but bringing in nativity status, there really is no argument for that.

The benefit of term limits is to prevent unforeseen people to take complete control of the government and create a dictatorship. Could term limits be eliminated today and work? Sure, they did up until FDR when he broke precedent. But 20 or 30 years down the road, what would happen if someone was elected over and over and they decided to consolidate power? Term limits are a check to the power of the executive, which was part of Washington's reasoning for his two terms and wanting to set precedent.

[NY94J30]

There is an argument for term limits, but bringing in nativity status, there really is no argument for that.

The point about the native-born requirement was a new direction, directed at the assertion for the absolute faith in the electorate, e.g., "term limits exist in the voting booth." If we are confident in the mandate of the electorate, such qualifications as do not go to the administration of the election (e.g., ballot access petitions) should be irrelevant.

The benefit of term limits is to prevent unforeseen people to take complete control of the government and create a dictatorship. Could term limits be eliminated today and work? Sure, they did up until FDR when he broke precedent. But 20 or 30 years down the road, what would happen if someone was elected over and over and they decided to consolidate power? Term limits are a check to the power of the executive, which was part of Washington's reasoning for his two terms and wanting to set precedent.

As for your second point, I don't follow; in what way do term limits serve to prevent unforeseen people from taking power?

And what would happen with a consolidation of executive power that was unacceptable to the electorate is an electoral change. Term limits do not prevent that.

[Jesda]

The point about the native-born requirement was a new direction, directed at the assertion for the absolute faith in the electorate, e.g., "term limits exist in the voting booth." If we are confident in the mandate of the electorate, such qualifications as do not go to the administration of the election (e.g., ballot access petitions) should be irrelevant.

I completely agree.

[smockers83]

Maybe I'm just a constitutionalist in the area of nativity status in that I believe the president should be native born for a few reasons. If we remove the nativity status requirement, what is to prevent someone from another country who has gained world-wide recognition, maybe hold office of another country, and decide to move here to become president. Do they really know about our country or has that person just participated in a popularity contest? Would you want someone from France to move over here and try and run for president? I feel that if you're going to be a leader of a country, you better be a native of that country.

As to the term limit, the unforeseen people would be people who consolidate power and turn it into something like a dictatorship or some sort of authoritarian government. It has happened before in the history of democracies around the world. This is what George Washington feared when he said two terms was enough for a president.

[NY94J30]

Maybe I'm just a constitutionalist in the area of nativity status in that I believe the president should be native born for a few reasons. If we remove the nativity status requirement, what is to prevent someone from another country who has gained world-wide recognition, maybe hold office of another country, and decide to move here to become president. Do they really know about our country or has that person just participated in a popularity contest? Would you want someone from France to move over here and try and run for president? I feel that if you're going to be a leader of a country, you better be a native of that country.

As to the term limit, the unforeseen people would be people who consolidate power and turn it into something like a dictatorship or some sort of authoritarian government. It has happened before in the history of democracies around the world. This is what George Washington feared when he said two terms was enough for a president.

This scenario presents a very cynical (possibly paternalistic) view of American elective democracy.

[hachiroku781]

There is an argument for term limits, but bringing in nativity status, there really is no argument for that.

The benefit of term limits is to prevent unforeseen people to take complete control of the government and create a dictatorship. Could term limits be eliminated today and work? Sure, they did up until FDR when he broke precedent. But 20 or 30 years down the road, what would happen if someone was elected over and over and they decided to consolidate power? Term limits are a check to the power of the executive, which was part of Washington's reasoning for his two terms and wanting to set precedent.

Hes absolutely right. Washington saw the dangers of multiple terms. after all we ceded from the british monarchy, thus it would make no sense to do that. The thing with FDR was a one time thing. serving four terms(he died in the forth). America sought him fit as he guided us through the great depression and WWII. in modern times this would never happen.