If you didn't have "career" politicians things could actually get done in US Govt. mainly because those politicians would not be worried about getting re-elected. And not being worried about getting re-elected means never having to listen to lobbyists who give them the money to get re elected. One term politicians could actually use their own minds for once.
2007-10-25 15:54:03 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes and no. We have some great politicians out there who I do not see anybody else replacing them with. I wish so for term limits if only it got rid of the losers that should not be there, but it would not be fair to say that this person is eligible to keep running cause he/she is popular with the people and this person can't due to unpopularity. Term limits should only be applied to state governments so that people will work themselves thru the system if they want to run for congress.
2007-10-26 10:37:37 · answer #1 · answered by Michael M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the 1930's I believe it was, that the Constitution was changed to allow for the election of Senators. Before that the State's Representatives selected them and if they did not do the wishes of the people the Governor of the State could remove them.
Term limits, absolutely. Two in the House, One in the Senate. No more big retirements. No more voting yourselves a $5000 a year raise. No more being elected to Congress stone broke and retiring a millionaire. We have Senators that have been there for nearly 50 years. I do not believe this is what the Framers had in mind for the Citizen Statesman. At the end of their terms give them a check for 50 grand, and a thank you for your service. You may not run for any elected Office in the Federal Government again except for President.
2007-10-25 23:15:33 · answer #2 · answered by ohbrother 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't necessarily agree with only one term, but we need term limits, especially as all districts are not equal and the same people getting elected over and over again is bad for the system, as those people gain more seniority and rise to be committee chairmen, where they can really control the agenda (and the pork).
Should be no more than 12 years in either House. It's ridiculous that people like Robert Byrd (first elected in 1958), Ted Kennedy (appointed to replace his brother in 1962) and Daniel Inouye (first elected in 1962) are still in the Senate, or that John Dingell and John Conyers (both from Michigan, Dingell elected in 1954 and Conyers in 1964) are both still in the House. All 5 were elected before I was born in 1965.
2007-10-25 23:08:16 · answer #3 · answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I practice my own version of term limits. I never vote for anyone who has completed 2 terms. In fact, some years I vote in different primaries just to vote against the incumbent, no matter what the party.
The real problem is that the two party system continues to offer humogenous candidates that make you hold your nose when you are voting.
Like for president...Hillary or Rudy...Peeeuuuuuuuuuu.
America needs a change. Too bad everyone couldn't vote for the lower tier candidates. That would screw the two parties up.
2007-10-25 23:07:25 · answer #4 · answered by wooper 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem with term limits is that there are some very good politicians in Washington and at the state and local level. A few years back Oakland County, Michigan had a great Republican (and I have very Democratic leanings) congressman named Bill Broomfield. He was beloved, never involved in a corruption scandle, worked hard for his constituants, and served for well over 50 years (from Eisenhower to Clinton).
If the people of Oakland County, MI wanted this man as their political leader...why should they be required to have him removed because he served 2 terms. If people in Mass. want Ted Kennedy out they have a very simple solution to that, vote him out. For those of who that complain about old Teddy (and I'm not a fan of his at all) remember this. He doesn't serve you. He is not your representative. You should have no say in whether or not he is in the senate. It is up to the people of Mass., who (for some reason) keep electing him.
This is the American political system. Having term limits will not cut back on corruption. In fact I would argue that it would only make matters worse. You would have (for lack of a better word) bosses in each state that would just continue to put one of their 'lackies' up for political office. You can find any schmoo of the street to agree to 2 terms in office in exchange for having his votes pre-determined by his 'boss'.
Term limits are a bad idea. If you think things don't get done now, wait til term limits keep bringing in new congressman that have keep running Congressional investigations to get up to speed on a topic, which will be final just in time for them to leave office and require another Congressional investigation by the new leaders.
The problem with Congress is not the number of terms they serve, its the political system of having to create two identical bills in two houses (which in some years are controlled by opposing political parties).
Things have gotten worse in recent years because the talk-show talking heads (on both sides of the aisle) won't accept their parties working with the evil other side on any issue.
2007-10-25 23:31:24 · answer #5 · answered by Downriver Dave 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with term limits but I will add one more thing. We can recall any member of our local and state governments through recall elections if they are not doing there job. We should have the right to hold a recall election for our Senators, and Representives.
2007-10-25 23:51:25 · answer #6 · answered by satcomgrunt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very possible, since in my estimation, most people don't know anything about the Congress people they vote for other than their names. They don't know the issues, or what these folks stand for. If Congresses terms are cut, that alone may end up forcing people to KNOW their candidates BEFORE they punch a chad out (or touch a pc screen) to vote.
God Bless America
2007-10-26 00:35:25 · answer #7 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i have advocated this since the '60's, it think it would eliminate a lot of our problems with politicians becoming corrupted by the system we now have in place which encourages corruption and we seemingly accept it as 'business as usual'.
nothing will change as long as those like Kennedy and others are constantly re-election dispite a proven lack of morals and ethics. drunks, sex-addicts. panderes, liars make up the bulk of these professional politicians currently serving 'us'.
2007-10-25 23:03:11 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with term limits...but 2 terms is about right for ALL political offices. Government service is a duty & priviledge. Not meant for a career and a way to get rich !
2007-10-25 22:58:09 · answer #9 · answered by commanderbuck383 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Agree, that is the main problem Many elected officals serve their own interest because they know they will constantly continue to be elected, and it happens on both sides
2007-10-25 22:57:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋