Term limits...

[OriginalWheelman]

For the record, I'm opposed to term limits. Maybe we would actually get something done if we didn't totally restructure our government every 8 years.

Presidential politics:

X administration is in power. Y administration criticizes for 8 years. After 8 years of criticism, the swing voters get sick of current party, being propagandized against them.Party Y gets into office. Party X criticizes for 8 years. After 8 years of criticism, the swing voters get sick of current party, being propagandized against them.Party X gets into office. Party Y criticizes for 8 years. After 8 years of criticism, the swing voters get sick of current party, being propagandized against them.etc...

The reason for the 8 year cycles is the lack of incumbent. The swing voter have no faith in either side really, so they "stick with what is working" rather than take chances with a new administration. There are incidents when incumbents are not reelected, but that is the exception, not the rule. If we removed term limits, then the opposing party would have to provide a significantly better choice to oust the incumbent. If EITHER party ran things for longer than 8 years it would be better than it is now. Most real plans take decades to implement correctly, and follow up on.

Imagine if you had two cars, and every eight years you switched to the other car. You would have to fix all the pieces that fell into disrepair. You would need to overhaul almost the whole thing to get it road worthy again. That takes so long that by the time you are done you're 5 years into the 8 year use. Then after year 7, you start to think about the other car, how it's going to take over, and you neglect the car you are driving because it is just not worth fixing something you are going to replace.

Term limits give us other stupid things like strategic retirement by supreme court justices. They can depend on the shift in government. They wait until the right administration is in power to retire, to ensure that the court "stays balanced". Show me where in the constitution it says that the supreme court has to be partisanly balanced.

[rn79870]

While that is a good argument, it misses one of the advantages of the 2 limit term. A politician facing re-election must choose between an act/action that is politically correct an one that is popular. A lame duck politician is free to choose without regard to his popularity in upcoming elections.

Additionally, the country needs to benefit from a change every so often. Your point about repeating errors and relearning is well taken.

I think we would benefit more from a three or even four party system. Sometimes choosing between 2 candidates becomes a matter of the lesser of 2 evils instead of a clear choice.

[skylndrftr]

My arguement for term limits is that otherwise we allow these thigns to become entrenched.

I have yet to see a politician, and doubt there is a person on earth, who is not to be corrupted by the power provided politicians. We don't want a president to be president for 50 years. Thats a king. You are also workign on the assumption that the new person knows nothing, which is rarely the case.

However, if politicians acted in the interest of the people, and not their own, then it would be irrelevant because all the politicians would pursue a very similar path AND we wouldn't have any reason to vote them out of office.

However, until we can fix people (and that is unlikely) term limits are neccesary for the protection of a free people as much as our guns.

[OriginalWheelman]

A politician facing re-election must choose between an act/action that is politically correct an one that is popular. A lame duck politician is free to choose without regard to his popularity in upcoming elections.

Shouldn't the politicians be doing what the constituents want anyways? This is something that really shouldn't matter.

[96Qowner]

Shouldn't voters be able to determine whether they want a politician to serve for 4 or 8 or 20 years?

I'm as sick and tired as anyone of the entrenched politicians with all the national special-interest funding that gets them reelected year after year. But nothing prevents voters from not reelecting a politician they don't like.

Term limits are just another way to remove responsibility from the voter. It means that we CAN'T have a politician that we want, because he's served "too long".

[OriginalWheelman]

Exactly. Honestly if it were Clinton vs. Bush in 2000, do you really think Bush would have won?

[96Qowner]

Even though I didn't want a 3rd term for Clinton, I'm all in favor of removing the Presidential term limit.

If and when government gives its citizens the impression that they aren't responsible for things, the citizens will stop exercising responsibility.

[rn79870]

Shouldn't the politicians be doing what the constituents want anyways? This is something that really shouldn't matter.

That would be great if it were true. How often do you see a politician polling his constituent for advice on an issue? They tend to do what benefits them and their life as a politician.

[OriginalWheelman]

That's because of the perception people have of politics. We elect leaders based on their beliefs, because they align with our own. We're conditioned to let them make the decisions for us. So we try to elect someone who has our belief system, or there abouts. Personally, I expect a lot out of leaders. A good leader does what is best, not what he wants. A leader should be making decisions for his people, not for himself. I personally don't care if the politician is a gay nazi priest, so long as he will makes decisions for his people, not himself.

[Encryptshun]

That would be great if it were true. How often do you see a politician polling his constituent for advice on an issue? They tend to do what benefits them and their life as a politician.

No one is saying that you don't have an election every 4 years, Bobby. Your argument is based on thinking that there is no political ramification for the current Exec's actions -- however that check-and-balance is the possibility of being voted out, same as now.

Edit* I think this debate should be fixed more at Congress rather than the President. During each Presidential term, there is a 66% turnover in Congress and potentially more than 100% depending on the timing of the end of the 6-year Senate terms. So THAT'S what adds all the crap to the cakemix. How do you learn your legislative body and how best to work with them when they are constantly in flux? What corporate CEO could steer a company if its management had a 66% turnover rate?

Further Edit* Yes, I'm aware that there are no legislative term limits. Yes, I'm aware that makes my post almost a threadjack. Yes, I apologize. Yes, your life will go on. Yes, Leonardo DiCaprio was excellent in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape".

[OriginalWheelman]

Don't apologize, that's a very good point.

[skylndrftr]

Unfortunately, wheelman the money that elects people in this coutnry comes from places that do not have constituents interest at heart. This combined with the two party system means that any real change is unlikely. I would support eliminating term limits if we didn't have the problems we do with congress right now (no term limits).

People as a whole are dumb and will vote for an sincumbent in the majority of cases simply because he is the incumbent

[96Qowner]

Unfortunately, wheelman the money that elects people in this coutnry comes from places that do not have constituents interest at heart. This combined with the two party system means that any real change is unlikely. I would support eliminating term limits if we didn't have the problems we do with congress right now (no term limits).

People as a whole are dumb and will vote for an sincumbent in the majority of cases simply because he is the incumbent

And if the people are so dumb, the solution is to remove them from the process? Heheh ... no. That special interest money doesn't prevent anyone from voting a bad legislator out of office. It's the responsibility of the voters to make informed choices, no matter how much someone spends on TV ads.

[WDRacing]

Good thread and I agree with most of you. If the best person for the job is currently DOING the job and "We The People" like what he's doing, then removing him simply because of a lame time table is like executing people that smoke because some day they may get cancer and die anyway. I know that reference doesn't make sense...that's the point.

Personally I think the way we allow our Gov to be run is broken and needs to re-evaluated in its entirety. From poor turn overs to lobbyist to ear marks...everything sucks IMO. Especially since they take 28% of my paycheck and do whatever they want with it. That should allow me some say in WTF they do and how they do it. But it doesn't...I can voice my opinion. But that doesn't mean they ARE going to do what the majority wants. It simply means they know where we stand and they'll do what THYE want or feel is best. Currently that seems to be whatever keeps them or their party on top.

WD

[OriginalWheelman]

There is no "two party system". We have a lot of parties in the US. There are two major parties, and they push the notion on the two party system, as it keeps up their chances. You can vote for ANYONE you want for president. Anyone who meets the qualifications. I've been watching politics since 88 (<3 CSPAN) when Reagan was ousted in favor of GHWB, and there have always been third parties in the mix. Perot and Nader are two of the most memorable. I'd love to see one of the "third parties" (what a ****ing BS term, condescending much?) get in just to rattle the big two's cages. I'd like to see the government accessible, open, and efficient. The biggest gripe I hear form people is that they don't know where all their taxes go.

[smockers83]

Elimination of the term limit may work now and the near future, but 100 years down the road, I have a good feeling it would mean a beginning of a disaster, like Roman empire disaster. There didn't have to be a term limit because it was precedent that a president only serves 2 terms until FDR. But the reason for the precedent was due to something Washington said or wrote I believe, but I don't remember what it was. Term limits are good in that it prevents one person from consolidating too much power from being in office for too long, which leads to more corruption (which would lead into voting, look at other countries with voting issues...none of them have term limits), a worse state, so on and so forth.

[skylndrftr]

There is no "two party system". We have a lot of parties in the US. There are two major parties, and they push the notion on the two party system, as it keeps up their chances. You can vote for ANYONE you want for president.

From a technical point you are obviously correct and I was not arguing that,

from a practical point, third parties have been shown several times now to have a negative effect on their equivalent 2 party candidate which just boggles the mind.

Lets play a hypothetical just for arguement:(seriously just for hypotheticals im using these names for simplicity)McCain loses the presidential election. He has missed 61% of the senate votes This Congress. So in running for president he has abandoned his responsibility to the people of AZ to represent them. I'd bet money though that Hitman would still vote him up for another Senate term. Hitman isn't stupid, but why would he vote for somebody who 61% of the time he was supposed to speak for him, had something better to do?

The criticism Wheelman mentions has nothing to do with term limits it has to do with election cycles. Theres an election in the middle of those 8 years where people get reelected.

[srellim234]

If people voted FOR the candidate aligned closest to their beliefs regardless of party instead of continuing to vote the two major parties feeling that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote our system would work better.

Term limits don't work. Here in California we have term limits. All they do is move around from office to office and feed from the public trough at a new location. Same old career politicians getting elected based on name recognition.

A very simplified but effective solution would be the elimination of any retirement benefits for any elected position. Right now these guys are voting themselves retirement benefits that they get for only one term of service! Better benefits than many rank and file workers qualify for after 20 year careers.

These politicians should be forced to be voting with the realization that what they are voting for is going to affect what happens to THEM when they return to the private sector to earn that retirement.

[smockers83]

That's why you put the issue into the public's hand. Here in MI this year we're getting to vote to reduce the salaries of our representatives and governor among other things in order to scale back costs.

[ishkabibble]

The "two-party system" and lobbying create far larger problems than term limits.

Once those are addressed, we could look into whether or not term limits are good or bad.