Term Limits

[stebo0728]

Ok so a question thats been on my mind regarding term limits. Im on the fence about the idea myself, I can sympathize with why they are wanted, but I can also sympathize with folks against em. I probably lean a little more toward falling off into the term limit side, but not sure yet. One aspect though that bothers me about it. What do we do when we get to a point that no one wants to run? Joe A has served his last possible term. Sadly, no one else has stepped up to fill the ticket, what now? Perhaps this isnt an issue I dont know, perhaps there wont be a shortage of candidates. But what if there is? Do we side step the limit and let the incumbent stay if no-one else challenges? What if only 1 challenges, then does he win automatically? Believe me I can understand term limits, and why they are wanted, but I just think we need to rationalize these minute aspects that no one thinks about when they carry rally banners.

[IBCoupe]

"We have term limits; they're called 'elections.' "

That's the ideal that I'd love to work towards, but the cynic in me is very open to arguments against it.

[stebo0728]

So if people are just too stupid and lazy to take an active role in elections, then they just get what they deserve? Hmm perhaps some merit in that.

[IBCoupe]

Well, think about it: if the only people who vote are the people who care, what's the harm? That people who don't care who they get wind up with someone they wouldn't like if they did care?

There's an argument that removing term limits would allow the democratic process to self-regulate. There's also an argument that term limits are a check on dynasties and dictators, and that without them, those with the power and influence (read: money) are those who retain power and influence. And then there's an argument that these things happen in spite of term limits, anyways.

I go back and forth on this issue.

[dusred]

It's not broke so why fix it?

[stebo0728]

Well if we believed completely that "its not broke" then I dont think we'd be having the discussion. Maybe its not broke, maybe it is a bit cracked, maybe theres a gaping hole, thats part of the discussion.

[IBCoupe]

I think a key question that we need to be asking is:

If a Senator has been in his or her position for fifty years, is that a problem?

As opposed to:

If a Senator I disagree with has been in his or her position for fifty years, is that a problem?

[audtatious]

There would be no need for term limits if I were King of the USA.

[dusred]

I think a key question that we need to be asking is:

If a Senator has been in his or her position for fifty years, is that a problem?

As opposed to:

If a Senator I disagree with has been in his or her position for fifty years, is that a problem?

I agree 100%.

I was thinking more of presidential term limits when I wrote my other post. I like the idea of new blood being pumped into the system but at the same time if the old blood is perfectly fine and competent why new blood? One reason I can think of is the newer the politician the less corruption he/she is able to get into.

"Politicians and diapers need to be changed for the same reason."

I guess I'm leaning for term limits but still. . . the current system seems to be working.

[IBCoupe]

While it's possible you might be injecting new blood, I wonder if the new blood isn't just old blood in disguise.

"Ten-term Senator Oldie McOldface announced his retirement at the end of the current session, and long-time staffer, Oldie McNewface, has already announced his candidacy for the seat."

[stebo0728]

The thing that irritates me more than anything else is the mid-term campaigning. As far as limits on number of terms, maybe we need that maybe we dont, really our system would work well already if people actually cared to participate, examine the principles of their candidates, and vote based on ideals rather than "whats he gonna put in my pocket". But the mid-term campaigning sickens me. Its almost to a point with some politicians, that their career is a campaign, as in, the campaigning actually never stops. Election day - win, day after, start campaigning for the next go. Thats kinda why I like the idea of alternating terms, after a win they can get to work on what they are supposed to be doing, and someone else can get to campaigning, once they finish their term then can go for the next time around.

[IBCoupe]

I just worry that you're only shifting the campaigning around. The popular act of endorsements suggests to me that, rather than campaign for him- or herself, a sitting politician will campaign for his or her successor, or, more likely: his or her party.

[srellim234]

Term limits have failed miserably here in California. Career politicians build the warchests and just find another office to run for. Same old garbage, brand new office. They then help their cronies get elected to their previous positions to entrench the party even deeper.

Much more effective would be the elimination of ANY retirement benefits or perks for any elected position with the exception of a security detail for former presidents. Being an elected politician should not be a career a person can retire from like a traditional job in the public or private sector.

[stebo0728]

Term limits have failed miserably here in California. Career politicians build the warchests and just find another office to run for. Same old garbage, brand new office. They then help their cronies get elected to their previous positions to entrench the party even deeper.

Much more effective would be the elimination of ANY retirement benefits or perks for any elected position with the exception of a security detail for former presidents. Being an elected politician should not be a career a person can retire from like a traditional job in the public or private sector.

I appreciate that, and someone who serves one 4 year term, Im right there with you, but what about someone who DOES make a career of it? Despite the epithet status the words "career politician" has gotten, some are ok, and some served because no one else cared to, and thus had no opportunity to have a private sector career. Should they be deprived a retirement also? Perhaps if someone realizes that the pension spicket is now off, they will choose NOT to server more that a term or 2, but then if we get to a point where office is avoided like the plague, how does that benefit us?

[stebo0728]

I just worry that you're only shifting the campaigning around. The popular act of endorsements suggests to me that, rather than campaign for him- or herself, a sitting politician will campaign for his or her successor, or, more likely: his or her party.

Good point, so what now? Instead of trying to mandate terms, should we instead be more stringent on campaign practices and funding?

[IBCoupe]

Abolish political parties? I don't know what the solution is. I just worry that the problem isn't them, it's us.

[stebo0728]

Abolish political parties?

DING DING DING!!!

[themadscientist]

Take away the perks that incumbents enjoy like free mail to the home district. The deck is stacked against challengers and that needs to stop. Only then will the term limit of free and fair elections be able to work.

[srellim234]

stebo- It's not a matter of depriving those career politicians of a retirement. They can invest in IRAs and let them pay into social security like the rest of us.

I'm not worried about a lack of candidates. If that does happen, though, then it will be a problem to be addressed at that time. Just as businesses often function with positions unfilled while they look to fill the slots, government entities can do the same.

[C-Kwik]

There would be no need for term limits if I were King of the USA.

You don't qualify. I hear the position for queen is open though.

[audtatious]

Nah, my wife would not want to be a queen for someone else.