One term & you're done. No more Ted Kennedy's & no more Liebermans. No one would be in Congress/Presidency long enough to become corrupt and many more Normal Americans would be able to run and serve and isn't that what democracy is all about?
2007-02-13 13:23:45 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Excellent point. Prez has a term limit. It only makes sense that Congress abide by the same rules.
2007-02-13 13:33:52 · answer #1 · answered by Beachman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree - term limits (like the one the President has of only two terms of four years each) are an excellent idea.
This would bring about major change in America. No longer would politicians be campaigning to stay in office, then doing nothing while they're in there in hopes that they won't offend anybody and be removed.
Instead, the politicians will likely focus much more on doing what they can for the good of the country and their district while they're in office.
The eight-year term limit seems fairly good for a President, and this same rule should be applied to the Congress.
I also thing that electing Senators should occur every two years, just like with the House of Representatives, instead of every six years like they do now.
This should also apply to the lower levels of the states, such as Governors and members of Congress in the states.
I've seen firsthand what happens when somebody's in office too long. I live in Michigan, currently the poorest, most economically bankrupt state in the union. We've hit our lowest spot since the Great Depression, and if it keeps on going, it'll pass even that. This is all thanks to Governor Granholm's wonderful ideas that never work. She's scared away all the business that provide jobs, and now wants to fix it by increasing all sorts of taxes and increasing the minimum wage, which will only increase the job losses even more. Had she been run out of office when her plans didn't work in the first place, I believe it may have turned out different.
If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask.
2007-02-13 13:43:42 · answer #2 · answered by Ryan B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmm... interesting idea. Or at least, put a limitation on consecutive terms.
Furthermore, go back to the days where holding a political office was a sacrifice, not a way to make money and get good pensions. Then there would be no insentive to make politics into a buisiness. Pay them enough so that they can live reasonably comfortable while in office, so that way you don't need to save up money to survive an office term.
The real problem though is that non-critical thinking people keep electing these politicians, responding to political adds, propaganda, and emotional appeals instead of using their brains. The swing voters are a major reason the country is screwed up, and until the public is educated in critical thinking and puts aside its apathy and gullibility we will continue to reap what we sow. Remember this is a government of the people.
2007-02-13 13:58:27 · answer #3 · answered by The Link 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would certainly be interesting...
I see public service as a profession that some people get better at over time. What we need less of is people like Bush whose real money comes from oil, and politics is just a way of protecting his investments. I'd prefer to see politicians who are truly answerable to the people working in the best interest of the people and earning enough money that corporations don't tempt them.
Edit: If they could only work one term, but we didn't reform campaign funding or other aspects of the process, we'd just see unknown candidates being sponsored by the same corporations... rather than gaining the trust of the people over time. I think it would actually be counterproductive and take the voice away from the people.
2007-02-13 13:29:30 · answer #4 · answered by Aleksandr 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who'll vote for that amendment? It's an interesting thought, but it will never happen. Power likes power. Rich get richer. The poor asks and answers stupid questions on Y/A.
2007-02-13 13:45:15 · answer #5 · answered by AK1971 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Considering that many seats on committees are based on senoity, and that reps only serve a two year term, it would mean that even less will be done and more corruption will happen.
2016-05-24 08:03:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it would be great. had the debate back in College in 82.
Same questions come up what would be the long term backlash.
2007-02-13 13:40:54 · answer #7 · answered by rdyjoe 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i thinks something would get done then...but one term is too short...maybe two or three terms...and no life time pensions for everyone who serves...
2007-02-13 13:30:29 · answer #8 · answered by turntable 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It might get us back in line with our founding fathers' intentions.
Servants...of the people by the people for the people.
2007-02-13 14:02:48 · answer #9 · answered by Hawkeye 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There would be too much emphasis on campaigning
2007-02-13 13:34:25 · answer #10 · answered by Dave ! 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋