I believe that all of our government officials should have term limits of 12 years. How do you feel?

Question

We have too many "lifetime" politicians. Let's get the government back into the hands of the people. Support term limits.

Answer 1

Two terms maximum per office. That and do away with their pension system. If social (in)security is good enough for the rest of us, it's good enough for them.

Answer 2

There's a problem with term limits, and there's another way to get new blood without placing arbitrary restrictions on how many years they can serve.

When the legislature is limited in how many years individual members can serve, due to term limits, it tends to only attract those people who have single issues that they want to adopt, not necessaily issues appropriate for the greatest number of people. It also tends to throw more power to the executive branch, since it takes newcomers a certain period of time to figure out how the system operates. In my state of California, the legislature has gotten weak, while the lobbyists and the executive branch with all its bureaucracy has gotten incedibly strong. Because they're neophytes, the new politicians tend to listen to the lobbyists more and those are usually the well heeled business types.

Due to the limits and the amount of money it takes to run, there are more millionaires running and winning than before. Moderates who are working on their careers aren't going to stop for an 8-12 year career; they won't run to begin with.

A better way to ensure fresh blood is to take the power of legislative district boundary drawing out of the hands of the legislators themselves and place it in independent hands. California tried it with three judges, but that didn't get approved. Too few people with too much power and the judges would be approved by the legislators themselves. They will come up with a system, but it will have to be national in scope so that Congress is competititve, too, not just state legislatures.
Right now, when politicians draw their own boundaries (think Tom DeLay in Texas in mid decade), they can create safe districts for themselves and their party. They now use computers and voter data now to the street. It creates a system in which politicians don't have to fight for their seats, therefore they don't have to address constitutuency concerns back home (due to their safe seats) and they can just pay attention to whatever party line or what the lobbyists are telling them.

It's extremely corrupt, and the solutions can be extremely corrupt, if the public isn't careful about reform.

Answer 3

If the people wanted to take back the government into their own hands they would do it by electing someone new. The people keep reelecting the same old tired cows because that's what the people want. Does this mean democracy sucks? No, it means the people are stupid. Term limits will not solve the root cause: stupidity.

Answer 4

12 is too long for some of them, but I think term limits would be a good thing.

Answer 5

I would lower that to 8 years. Get some new blood circulating. The only benefit of lifetime politicos is to themselves, certain not to the pubic, which they are suppose to serve.

Answer 6

But the presidency remains at 8 years. The rest is fine

Answer 7

Full support. For 12 years they can get fat enough and let other skinny folk feed up.

Answer 8

I'm with you!! And if they misbehave throw them out. Like Ted Kennedy, when he drove his car into a river, an a girl die. It took him 8 hours to call police!! Besides he is been in office for a lot of years!!

Answer 9

I agree, we need fresh ideas in our government offices.

Answer 10

definately even i think this is also more as they earn somuch in short span of time that they did'nt need to do anything else more.