Term limits for legislators would break the cycle of disproportionate representation that some get by having their members of congress on select committees, typically via longevity in the congress and loyalty to (and therefore tenure and stature in) the party. Legislators climb the ladder, which gives their supporters incentive to re-elect them, so that they can plunder the other states in order to “bring home the bacon”. ("We have to keep electing Ted Kennedy because he's on key committees and we'll lose that clout if we elect someone else"). The local constituents and special interests/lobbyists are happy because they get the pork, the candidate is happy because he gets re-elected and his power and ability to dole out favors and government goodies grows, and people are made more dependent upon his favor, which increases his likelihood of re-election, which . . . (you get the picture). Term limits would limit this abuse. Other measures would help, but term limits are a good start.
2007-02-15 05:32:27 · 2 answers · asked by Captain Obvious! 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I believe that term limits would usher in a whole new level (maybe even era) of democracy. Perhaps someday, if this happens, legislators will one day be loyal to their constituents, rather than to their parties. If this were to go into effect, legislators would come to the realization that they are the people's servants and must do as we collectively wish.
2007-02-15 05:38:45 · answer #1 · answered by Mike 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good question. I used to be against term limits. I've changed my mind. These folks get elected and you can't get them out. It was never intended to be a profession.
2007-02-15 05:38:01 · answer #2 · answered by Matt 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋