Current Events > The argument against the 22nd amendment?!?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Term limits, are they good ultimately, or are they created out of fear?!? In a Republic, is it fair to tell people that they can't vote for the person they feel will best represent them? Imagine if the 22nd amendment prevented FDR from being president during WWII.

At the same time, we look at senators who are old and crooked, with no real chance of them being kicked out due to the incumbent-advantage. Could that happen with a president, someone who only has corrupt ambitions who will stay until he dies because voters hate change?!?

Then again, you can argue the constant change never gives us a chance to have an established administration with a real-long term plan that won't be ruined in the name of "politics."

I want to give a speech on term-limits, but I wonder which side I want to be on. The optimist in me tells me that we don't need them limits, while the cynic says otherwise.
---

I say we get rid of it and let Trump have 28 years!!
---

I think they're kinda dumb because 1) if people are willing to vote for someone, they should be able to vote for them and 2) like any job, being a politician requires experience to get good at, and there is benefit to having people in office for long periods of time because they know how shit works.
---

Generally in a republic, someone capable of being a lifelong executive leader is a bad thing. There's a game called Europa universalis 4 and if you play as a republic and choose to keep electing the same leader, the leader gets better overtime but you lose republic tradition which is a bad thing. It's a trade off.
---

There should be term limits across the board. People are too worried about re-election to govern.
---

lilORANG posted...

I think they're kinda dumb because 1) if people are willing to vote for someone, they should be able to vote for them and 2) like any job, being a politician requires experience to get good at, and there is benefit to having people in office for long periods of time because they know how shit works.

But you'll lose Republican tradition over time.
---

cobain27 posted...

There should be term limits across the board. People are too worried about re-election to govern.

I'd almost go as far as saying all elected officials get 1 6 year term and that's it.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Generally in a republic, someone capable of being a lifelong executive leader is a bad thing. There's a game called Europa universalis 4 and if you play as a republic and choose to keep electing the same leader, the leader gets better overtime but you lose republic tradition which is a bad thing. It's a trade off.

That is my biggest fear. If we are electing the same person over and over, where it is pretty much known they will be our leader for a long time, are we really what a Republic is supposed to be. Making our presidents our Kings?
---

ChainedRedone posted...

lilORANG posted...

I think they're kinda dumb because 1) if people are willing to vote for someone, they should be able to vote for them and 2) like any job, being a politician requires experience to get good at, and there is benefit to having people in office for long periods of time because they know how shit works.

But you'll lose Republican tradition over time.

Not if the other party puts up someone who can win. If they can't, then why get rid of a popular leader?
---

AssultTank posted...

lilORANG posted...

ChainedRedone posted...

lilORANG posted...

I think they're kinda dumb because 1) if people are willing to vote for someone, they should be able to vote for them and 2) like any job, being a politician requires experience to get good at, and there is benefit to having people in office for long periods of time because they know how shit works.

But you'll lose Republican tradition over time.

Not if the other party puts up someone who can win. If they can't, then why get rid of a popular leader?

How satisfied are you with Congress?

it's mostly garbage
---

We love our congressmen, but hate Congress because we fail to see our congressmen are what makes up the Congress that we hate.
---

If you're talking about just keeping the president's 4 year terms as they already are but allowing them to keep getting re-elected, I think that would be a disaster.

Forget about consecutive terms, you'd probably have a lot of former presidents trying to pull a Grover Cleveland and come back to take another stab at the presidency after being out of office for a while.

Imagine a candidate field where the majority of the top contenders are former presidents.
---

cobain27 posted...

There should be term limits across the board. People are too worried about re-election to govern.

THIS.

Also long term power can really skew your perspective and make it hard to relate to the "little people."

No one should be in power for several decades. There is too much room for Corrpution, Apathy, Stagnation, Perputual campaigning etc when power is held long term.

Let us not forget how congress approval ratings are often in the single digits or low teens yet re-election rates are astoundingly high,

Why is everyone getting re-elected if no one thinks congress is doing well?
---

if I was building from scratch, I'd limit to 12 years in each branch of government, at each level. standardize all terms at their current federal lengths, except judges, which are elected/appointed for a single 12 year term.

so, someone could 3 terms as President, and 3 as Governor and 3 as County (insert regional title here), for 36 years as an Executive, but would then either retire or seek a different role.

or, someone could spend 12 years as a State senator, before moving on to 12 years in Congress, then president, and finish out a public service career as a federal Judge.

lifers still have options, but no more stagnation in some roles.
---

AssultTank posted...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/12/2012-reelection-rate-90-percent-151898

Obviously it should be easy to get rid of an unpopular Congress... <_<

People mostly like their own congresspeople. Hence, they are re-elected.
---

Term-limits are inherently anti-democratic, as they artificially restrict who the voters are allowed to vote for. And they do so on a completely arbitrary basis. Moreover, with how American politics work now, term-limits would simply serve to worsen partisanship and increase the influence of dark money and special interests.

Term limits for Congress wouldn't make much sense. The point of term limits for a head of government is to deter one single person from gaining absolute power. No congressman has enough power to make as much of a difference.
---

Oshawottownage posted...

Let us not forget how congress approval ratings are often in the single digits or low teens yet re-election rates are astoundingly high

this has been answered in this topic already:

PiOverlord posted...

We love our congressmen, but hate Congress because we fail to see our congressmen are what makes up the Congress that we hate.

and imo term limits for congress is one of those quick and easy things people advocate for like multiple parties, where the reality is that they're not exactly good changes
---

lilORANG posted...

I think they're kinda dumb because 1) if people are willing to vote for someone, they should be able to vote for them and 2) like any job, being a politician requires experience to get good at, and there is benefit to having people in office for long periods of time because they know how shit works.

I'm not convinced. If Congress has taught us anything, it's the longer they're in office, the more corrupt they become.
---

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Term-limits are inherently anti-democratic, as they artificially restrict who the voters are allowed to vote for. And they do so on a completely arbitrary basis. Moreover, with how American politics work now, term-limits would simply serve to worsen partisanship and increase the influence of dark money and special interests.

We are a republic first, a democracy second. There are a lot of anti-democratic things we do that have saved our lives and our society.

prince_leo posted...

and imo term limits for congress is one of those quick and easy things people advocate for like multiple parties, where the reality is that they're not exactly good changes

How is it a bad thing to keep people like Pelosi and McCain from being reelected for 40th time.
---

Give Congressmen a maximum of 12 years. No more incumbent decrepit old people running unopposed in their 5th decade in Congress.
---

Tropicalwood posted...

How is it a bad thing to keep people like Pelosi and McCain from being reelected for 40th time.

Ideally, they'd be voted out because there would be other challengers who better represent their constituents

Look, there are a ton of people in congress that I don't like or agree with, but the problem with putting up term limits means that you'll immediately be giving more power to lobbyists and aides. Y'know, the people who aren't elected
---

prince_leo posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

How is it a bad thing to keep people like Pelosi and McCain from being reelected for 40th time.

Ideally, they'd be voted out because there would be other challengers who better represent their constituents

Look, there are a ton of people in congress that I don't like or agree with, but the problem with putting up term limits means that you'll immediately be giving more power to lobbyists and aides. Y'know, the people who aren't elected

Here's the thing with voting out a shitty congressman, it doesn't happen. They'll always run unopposed because seniority.
---

Cherrys2000 posted...

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Term-limits are inherently anti-democratic, as they artificially restrict who the voters are allowed to vote for. And they do so on a completely arbitrary basis. Moreover, with how American politics work now, term-limits would simply serve to worsen partisanship and increase the influence of dark money and special interests.

We are a republic first, a democracy second. There are a lot of anti-democratic things we do that have saved our lives and our society.

I think you'll find that those things make things worse, not better.

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Cherrys2000 posted...

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Term-limits are inherently anti-democratic, as they artificially restrict who the voters are allowed to vote for. And they do so on a completely arbitrary basis. Moreover, with how American politics work now, term-limits would simply serve to worsen partisanship and increase the influence of dark money and special interests.

We are a republic first, a democracy second. There are a lot of anti-democratic things we do that have saved our lives and our society.

I think you'll find that those things make things worse, not better.

Uh no I'm glad oppressive measures such as gay marriage bans are overturned regardless of popular opinion.
---

jsb0714 posted...

lilORANG posted...

I think they're kinda dumb because 1) if people are willing to vote for someone, they should be able to vote for them and 2) like any job, being a politician requires experience to get good at, and there is benefit to having people in office for long periods of time because they know how shit works.

I'm not convinced. If Congress has taught us anything, it's the longer they're in office, the more corrupt they become.

I think the solution is to reform our campaign process. Stop running ads 2 years in advance and heavily restrict campaign donations and spending. Having to run for re-election is the fulltime job, and it's what makes people so desperate for and beholden to the big donors.

I feel like if you add term limits but don't fix the other stuff, the Koch bros are just going to set up "candidate mills" where they breed their newest candidates years in advance. They'll be just as corrupt as anyone and nothing will have been solved, and if more Congresspeople are getting removed due to term limits we'll probably just be paying more people pensions >_>
---

Every seat in politics should have a term limit. Honestly that would fix some big issues with the current state of politics.
---

ChainedRedone posted...

Uh no I'm glad oppressive measures such as gay marriage bans are overturned regardless of popular opinion.

that's one of the things that i'm conflicted on
like, I'm all for gay marriage. at the same time, I think the supreme court overstepped itself there

i'm glad it happened, but only because it went the way I wanted. who's to say the next time it'll be the same?

lilORANG posted...

I feel like if you add term limits but don't fix the other stuff, the Koch bros are just going to set up "candidate mills" where they breed their newest candidates years in advance. They'll be just as corrupt as anyone and nothing will have been solved

exactly. it's just a convenient way to "solve" the problem without addressing the actual issue at hand.
of course, there are many who feel this already exists so they won't be convinced
---

prince_leo posted...

that's one of the things that i'm conflicted on
like, I'm all for gay marriage. at the same time, I think the supreme court overstepped itself there

i'm glad it happened, but only because it went the way I wanted. who's to say the next time it'll be the same?

It doesn't matter which way the could have ruled. Tyranny of the majority shouldn't exist.
---