Currently, incumbents are re-elected 90% of the time. They have access to their party's pool of money and marketing resources to get re-elected. Once they're in, it's extremely difficult to vote them out. Our founding fathers never intended to have 'career' politicians but that's what we have. I believe the longer a politician is in Washington, the better chance of him/her becoming corrupt. The reason Congress won't enact Term Limits is because they benefit so much from NOT having it. People are too vulnerable to slick, big-money marketing campaigns that both parties can generate for their incumbents. If term limits is a good idea for the office of the President, it's a good idea for Congress as well.
2006-08-12 13:37:21 · 14 answers · asked by tommy lampini 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
works for me
some stay till they are senile
2006-08-12 13:40:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
There happen to be a (very, very) few congresspersons who have always and continue to do as good a job as they can (in a corrupt system), and do NOT become corrupt.
Term limits aren't going to suddenly make people be intelligent voters.
And that's the answer, that people not vote when they don't know what they're voting for (leave it blank and move on), and, if they want to vote, that they inform themselves of their choices, and think clearly and deeply about what they want.
The corruption would just move around a little, it wouldn't go away. The money would still rule, there'd just be less accountability, as it wouldn't reside in (sort of) elected officials.
As to the argument "they'd have to buy a new politician every few years" I say, they're the only ones who can afford to. The problem wouldn't go away.
Overturning the absurd ruling that "money is speech" and therefore only those with money have the right to control all our lives -- now THAT would be a solution. Equal time for all candidates.
2006-08-12 20:48:09 · answer #2 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. I think by giving all our government members Term Limits, we take away the People Choice! It was us who was given the choice to put who we want there and how long that person stays there. The President should not have a Term Limit either! The only Man that held that Job for more than 2 terms only did it because he wanted to finish the job and the people wanted him to be there but he did not live to see what he did do! He wore himself out for us because we wanted him there!
2006-08-12 21:08:03 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There should be something in the Constitution, but since Congress makes the laws it will never happen. The reason that the President has term limits is that when Congress became Republican after FDR, they wanted to be sure that there would be no more "Caesars" in office. In the case of George W. that will work, since he will be gone in January 2009.
2006-08-12 21:04:45 · answer #4 · answered by kepjr100 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Great idea.
But what Congress is going to vote itself out of office to pass that law?
Swordfish (above) makes a good point. Elections and voter participation should be all we need. The problem is, the American populace is just as partisan and just as trapped in inertia as Congress.
2006-08-12 20:44:11 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think it's as necessary as term limits for presidency. But I do think it's a good idea. I would hope in addition to the issues you mentioned, it would add incentive for them to stop procrastinating and actually do something, since they know they only have a limited time to do their job. I think that's wishful thinking though.
2006-08-12 20:50:34 · answer #6 · answered by maguire1202 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Term limits are a way to say we are too stupid to vote someone out of office if they're doing a bad job so they'll oust them for us.
The problem is, when we get someone good, we can't keep them.
2006-08-12 20:43:50 · answer #7 · answered by Swordfish_13 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Definitely. However, the term limit should be something like 4, 4 year terms.
2006-08-12 20:40:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
They should just put limits on the stupidity of voters for putting these schmucks back in office all the time.
2006-08-12 20:49:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I oppose term limits for all offices. In fact I think we should repeal the amendment which places them on the Presidency.
2006-08-12 20:41:52 · answer #10 · answered by Justin M 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I agree. Term limits would also make it harder for corporations and special interest groups to get such a strong foothold; they'd have to buy new politicians every few years!
2006-08-12 20:47:11 · answer #11 · answered by lee m 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋