Term Limits

[wildcat09 29258]

I'm starting this so as not to derail the 3 topics thread, where a few posters have said they'd like us to implement (presumably Congressional) term limits. I've pushed back on this before in a few different threads, but figured a dedicated thread would be helpful for some people. We've actually got term limits in state legislatures all around the country and have for decades now, so we've got a lot of data we can analyze to determine whether term limits have been good or bad. And the results have been almost universally bad:

Quote

Okay, we need to talk about term limits. Several candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination have now advocated for congressional term limits, as has President Trump. Political science has done a lot of work on term limits (spoiler: we don't like them), and this seems like an important time to weigh in on that. 

Politically, there's some obvious payoff for a candidate to advocate for term limits. The reform remains astoundingly popular -- more than 80% favor a constitutional amendment limiting congressional terms, by some polls. And term limits for state legislatures have passed basically every time they've been put on a ballot. Interestingly, though, people don't seem all that happy with the results at the state level. People aren't convinced that politicians are less corrupt, have better ideas, or represent them better under term limits. Yet they still support extending term limits to Congress and other offices. Like many other Progressive reforms, term limits simply can't fail; they can only be failed.

But I wanted to take a moment to review just what scholars have learned about this topic. We're three decades into the term limit revolution at the state level. We have tons of evidence, pretty much all of which says that term limits aren't that great. But what precisely does it say is wrong with them?

One of the important effects of term limits is that they increase legislative polarization. As Michael Olson and Jon Rogowski report, term limits reduce the value of holding office and increase the influence of legislative parties. Legislatures become more ideologically polarized when term limits are in effect.

Boris Shor and I did a study of the Nebraska Unicam that confirmed these effects. In that state, term limits gutted the legislature in the mid-2000s, leaving more than half the seats open when they went into effect. The parties responded rationally by recruiting people to run for those seats, and the people they recruited were far more ideologically motivated than those they were replacing. Even in an officially nonpartisan legislature, term limits sharply increased polarization.

Another important effect of term limits is to reduce legislators' expertise and capacity, as nicely described in this Brookings study. If you can only serve for six or eight years, chances are you don't get particularly good at some of the key tasks of legislating -- writing a budget, crafting large bipartisan bills, understanding the executive branch well enough to provide competent oversight, etc. -- before you get kicked out. Often legislative leaders have only a few years of experience before they take over the chamber.

This inexperience and lowered capacity tends to make legislatures weaker relative to the governor's office. Under term limits, California legislators, according to Bruce Cain and Thad Kousser, are less likely to screen bills or alter the governor's budget proposals. As they argue, "For a variety of reasons related to term limits, there is more room for fiscal irresponsibility in the Legislature now and less incentive, experience, and leadership to correct it." This weakness also means that legislators are more subject to the influence of lobbyists, who are not term limited and can develop a lifetime of expertise on a subject. 

Some more findings suggest that term limits generally fail to achieve what their advocates promise. That is, they have not reduced campaign spending. They have not, as Susan Carroll and Krista Jenkins noted, increased the number of women serving in office. Nor have they increased the overall representativeness or diversity of legislatures. 

Interestingly, term limits don't even seem to limit time in office all that much. Jordan Butcher and Aaron Kushner tracked the careers of thousands of state legislators over many years. What they found was that, on average, legislators in term-limited states stay in office longer; they're more likely to finish out the full time for which they're eligible. 

The overall summary of the literature is that term limits weaken legislatures (to the benefit of governors, parties, and lobbyists), increase polarization, and fail to achieve much of their good government goals. As Kris Kanthak noted at a recent conference, the reason more political scientists aren't on line criticizing term limits is because our literature on this topic is about as close to a consensus as we get, and there just isn't much of a percentage in writing on a solved problem.

Probably the best one can say about term limits is that they really do limit terms. Unlike many political reforms, this one isn't something you can get around. Even very powerful, well-entrenched legislative leaders lose their seats because of it. The question is whether that makes the political system better as a result, and it's really hard to answer that in the affirmative.

If you're not interested in the results and you just simply don't like experienced politicians, well then yes, term limits may be just the thing you're looking for. But if good governance is something you care about, it's hard to make the case that term limits will get you there.

ADDENDA: Thanks to all of you who tweeted links to term limits research I failed to mention above. Just to post some highlights:

Term limits reduce voter turnout and fail to achieve most of what they promise. (Kimberly Nalder)

Termed-limited legislators put less effort into lawmaking in their final term. They sponsor fewer bills, do less work on committees, and skip more votes. (Andrew Hall and Alexander Fouirnaies)

In Michigan, term limits limited legislator expertise and reinforced the power of caucus leaders, regional cliques, and consulting networks. (Marjorie Sarbaugh-Thompson, Lyke Thompson, Charles D. Elder, Meg Comins, Richard C. Elling, and John Strate)

Redistricting is more partisan and more aggressive in term-limited states. (Brian Schaffner, Mike Wagner, and Jon Winburn)

In inexperienced legislatures, power tends to be concentrated in the hands of a few experts. (Nancy Burns, Laura Evans, Gerald Gamm, and Corrine McConnaughy.)

For legislators with long term career goals in politics, term limits makes them less interested in constituent service, but more interested in fundraising. (Julie VanDusky-Allen)

There's links to over a dozen supporting studies at the site I linked. Term limits don't actually accomplish anything that their well-intentioned proponents believe that they'll accomplish, but they do enhance lobbyist power and diminish the capacity of legislatures to actually enact effective policy, which is why Republicans frequently advocate for them. If you're a Democrat, please stop falling for their bullshit on this.

[David Dennison 18661]

I oppose term limits.

I fully support age limits.

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Term limits don't actually accomplish anything that their well-intentioned proponents believe that they'll accomplish

Mitch McConnell wouldn’t be in the Senate today and that would make me happy. 

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2059]

It was an idea that interested me in the eighth grade and not really since. 

[wildcat09 29258]

8 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Mitch McConnell wouldn’t be in the Senate today and that would make me happy. 

Mitch McConnell is Mitch McConnell because the Republican party leader is massively incentivized to act like Mitch McConnell. If he wasn't doing his thing someone else would be.

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Mitch McConnell is Mitch McConnell because the Republican party leader is massively incentivized to act like Mitch McConnell. If he wasn't doing his thing someone else would be.

But it wouldn’t be that cunt.

[Smax 3800]

Long overdue, politics used to be viewed as civil duty, now its a get rich scheme. Unfortunately our ruling class is comprised of men and women who would not put the good of the country over enriching themselves.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Long overdue, politics used to be viewed as civil duty, now its a get rich scheme. Unfortunately our ruling class is comprised of men and women who would not put the good of the country over enriching themselves.

Well seeing as how term limits encourages former elected officials to go into lobbying and would result in a higher turnover therefore resulting in MORE former elected officials looking for big dollar work, you might want to rethink that strategy.

[atomheartbevo 89449]

1 hour ago, Smax said:

Long overdue, politics used to be viewed as civil duty, now its a get rich scheme. 

If you could work it so that people in Congress aren't profiting in the stock market, etc., it might even act as a pseudo-term limit.

[Bateshorn 9905]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

I oppose term limits.

I fully support age limits.

This.  I also believe the democrats should implement committee chair term limits like the republicans.  It’s why the party is so fucking old: it’s members never have any incentive to leave. Other than Don Young in the GOP, most members retire once they’ve used up their seniority.

 

Ive got a quiet week during Thanksgiving, maybe I’ll do an AMA.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Bateshorn

[South Austin 52144]

How about salary limits?

[hobbes2702 12846]

Definitely oppose term limits for at least the house. I can see limits for the senate as they aren’t direct reps but the house should never have term limits.

[CooterBrown 17913]

How about salary limits?

The salary should be the average American salary. The benefits package should be the same as any run of the mill federal employee.

[Pescado_Rojo 19331]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

I oppose term limits.

I fully support age limits.

Can't start a Senate term past age 72, or a congressional term past 76. We don't need 80 year olds running the country. My in-laws are both multi-degreed retired professionals in their mid-70s, and the cognitive decline the past couple years has been noticeable. 

[Bateshorn 9905]

2 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Can't start a Senate term past age 72, or a congressional term past 76. We don't need 80 year olds running the country. My in-laws are both multi-degreed retired professionals in their mid-70s, and the cognitive decline the past couple years has been noticeable. 

 This. My mother is a national leader in her research field and her cognitive decline since she turned 75 is pretty stark. 

[Anastasis 23394]

"Politician" should not be a career. 

[Anastasis 23394]

That the "The bureaucracy is just too hard to understand and if we enact term limits we will just need more lobbyists to explain how fucked up our government is." is the most compelling argument says a lot.     

Edited November 13, 2021 by Anastasis

[Degenerate Gardner 4081]

7 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I oppose term limits.

I fully support age limits.

Matt Goetz is in partial agreement.

[wildcat09 29258]

54 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That the "The bureaucracy is just too hard to understand and if we enact term limits we will just need more lobbyists to explain how fucked up our government is." is the most compelling argument says a lot.     

That thirty years of data proves all your claims about term limits to be bullshit but you still champion them says a lot more.

[Deej 76568]

Instead of term limits, maybe make them step down once their net worth is a certain amount over what is was when they were first elected. 

[Anastasis 23394]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

That thirty years of data proves all your claims about term limits to be bullshit but you still champion them says a lot more.

What specific claims have I made?  

[atomheartbevo 89449]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

"Politician" should not be a career. 

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

That the "The bureaucracy is just too hard to understand and if we enact term limits we will just need more lobbyists to explain how fucked up our government is." is the most compelling argument says a lot.     

Once it becomes your career, politicians have one priority - winning the next election. Which means cozying up to the lobbyists and the BMDs on a near-constant basis, particularly those in the House who are running every two years, and who are far more vulnerable to challengers.

 

[Smax 3800]

6 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Well seeing as how term limits encourages former elected officials to go into lobbying and would result in a higher turnover therefore resulting in MORE former elected officials looking for big dollar work, you might want to rethink that strategy.

 

I disagree, I think turnover is good you let them sit there for years and they become entrenched and that is where we are now. This is all wishing as we know it will never happen, too much money involved, every DC politician is far wealthier when they leave office then when they first get elected. People comment and or joke about the corruption in third world countries but we are far worse because we've legalized corruption in this country.

[Neonmoon 38127]

Anyone over 65 should be shunned 

[Underdog 28457]

Both term/age limits.  As brought up earlier in another thread should have to pass a basic civics class before running for public office, why I’ll never run. An IQ check wouldn’t hurt either. 

[Poolflood 845]

1 hour ago, Underdog said:

Both term/age limits.  As brought up earlier in another thread should have to pass a basic civics class before running for public office, why I’ll never run. An IQ check wouldn’t hurt either. 

Is this acceptable for voting?

[Underdog 28457]

Absolutely.  I won’t be able to run for office and vote, but whatever works best for America.  

[SydneyCarton 47884]

Term limits do not have to kick out qualified people, nor do they have to incentivize a move to lobbying. Make the term limits on the house 5 terms. That's 10 fucking years of service. For Senators, cap it at 3. That's damn near 20 years of service. 

I'm not sure we can feasibly offer a salary limit/reduction, as this isn't quite like a state leg that might meet every other year, it does seem like a full time job. But I'd love to hear a working structure, as I agree serving used to be a civic duty, not it's were former model mayhem fuckfaces go to seek fame and grift. We all know that's a huge problem.

I also don't see how you do an age restriction, either, but man I'd love that as well. Good luck implementing that until after the major boomer die off, however. 

[956 Worldwide 34444]

I’m against term limits for legislators. Legislators are directly elected by voters to represent the specific interests of a district or state, and voters in a district should be able to decide who they want to represent them. That’s the difference between the executive, who has such extensive power nationally and who nominally represents everyone. 

If their constituents like the job that the rep is doing, then why arbitrarily say he or she can’t do it anymore? Most people hate Congress but like their Congressman or Congresswoman. And paradoxically, I think that term limits increase the chance of a grifting, get while the gettin’s good mentality. 

I am intrigued by age limits. 

[hobbes2702 12846]

3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’m against term limits for legislators. Legislators are directly elected by voters to represent the specific interests of a district or state, and voters in a district should be able to decide who they want to represent them. That’s the difference between the executive, who has such extensive power nationally and who nominally represents everyone. 

If their constituents like the job that the rep is doing, then why arbitrarily say he or she can’t do it anymore? Most people hate Congress but like their Congressman or Congresswoman. And paradoxically, I think that term limits increase the chance of a grifting, get while the gettin’s good mentality. 

I am intrigued by age limits. 

Yup, no way should we prevent people from being able to elect whomever they want to be their direct representative. 

[wildcat09 29258]

It's funny how you can have an issue where one side's claims can actually be tested, and have been tested and proven completely false with over three decade's worth of data, and when presented with the proof of the falsity they just go "nu uh, I'm right." Even on what is one of the very few non-partisan issues remaining in politics.

Did I say funny? I meant maddening. 

[bernorange 8348]

FYI: 

 

[956 Worldwide 34444]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's funny how you can have an issue where one side's claims can actually be tested, and have been tested and proven completely false with over three decade's worth of data, and when presented with the proof of the falsity they just go "nu uh, I'm right." Even on what is one of the very few non-partisan issues remaining in politics.

Did I say funny? I meant maddening. 

It’s just that it seems counterintuitive and the idea that “swamp creatures” are our problem is so ingrained— it’s not really conservative or liberal.

But stop and reflect for a moment and you’ll see why a rotating cast of greenhorns will be MORE in thrall to national party interests and their funders.  The long term rep who can tell his party leadership to take a flying leap because he is confident he has the backing of his district is a feature, not a bug of our system.

[wildcat09 29258]

2 minutes ago, bernorange said:

FYI: 

 

Yes, but I'm lazy and didn't want to search.

[bernorange 8348]

Oh, I'm not complaining.  Just adding it for another data point (article referenced in 1st post) that wasn't mentioned in the reference you provided in this thread.

[bluto 4894]

It’s just that it seems counterintuitive and the idea that “swamp creatures” are our problem is so ingrained— it’s not really conservative or liberal.
But stop and reflect for a moment and you’ll see why a rotating cast of greenhorns will be MORE in thrall to national party interests and their funders.  The long term rep who can tell his party leadership to take a flying leap because he is confident he has the backing of his district is a feature, not a bug of our system.

Ya bc that’s happening often these days.

[hobbes2702 12846]

Just now, bluto said:

Ya bc that’s happening often these days.

Ummm it’s literally been a huge part of the house not being able to pass infrastructure until recently. 

[gmr548 16517]

This is just so far down the list of problems

[Anastasis 23394]

5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

It's funny how you can have an issue where one side's claims can actually be tested, and have been tested and proven completely false with over three decade's worth of data, and when presented with the proof of the falsity they just go "nu uh, I'm right." Even on what is one of the very few non-partisan issues remaining in politics.

Did I say funny? I meant maddening. 

Funny, at least in the context of a message board discussion where you are just arguing against strawmen. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

If Ted Cruz is for term limits, that is all I need to know to oppose them. 

[hpslugga 4044]

On 11/12/2021 at 1:01 PM, Fudge Nuggets said:

Mitch McConnell wouldn’t be in the Senate today and that would make me happy. 

If it wasn’t Mitch McConnell, it’d be someone else. Politicians/elected officials don’t act on their own free will. They’re beholden to the moneyed interests that help get them elected and they act accordingly. If you impose term limits, it’s just gonna speed up the garbage in/garbage out cycle. 

[Guest]

Vote better.

Term limits don't change the task at hand...  the notion that they do is pure fantasy.

I do like it that the topic is virtually non-partisan, but also am concerned that  a shit-ton of "ageism" is in some people's arguments.  While yes, there are some seemingly senile AF old timers in office; we're also supposed to just ignore/ dispose of the people/ minds with the most experience?

That's not a recipe for success either.

Edited November 16, 2021 by slorch

[txhorns 2408]

I don’t care about term limits but definitely think age limits should be a thing.  I also believe that everyone in Congress should be required to release their tax returns to the public every year they are in office.  

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, txhorns said:

I don’t care about term limits but definitely think age limits should be a thing.

Are you suggesting a test of competency?  Would love to hear more, and I'm not sure I disagree.

If so, how would you implement it?  Just saying someone is too old is bullshit.

[TXSG8R 3360]

We need to find a way to decouple lobbying/grifting/insider trading from legislating. After that term limits don’t matter, and politicians will perform a civic duty and GTFO naturally because there is little incentive to stick around beyond service to others. 
 

At a minimum congress people should be barred from any stock trading. Lobbying money should be eliminated completely. 5 year freeze on any post service employment with any lobbying org or companies. Cut off the money and the rest takes care of itself. 

[Anastasis 23394]

 

 

5. Patrick Leahy (March 31, 1940 – Present)

 Current Age (as of February 2021): 80 years, 10 months, 8 days
 State: Vermont
 Political Party: Democratic
 Assumed Office: January 3, 1975

 

4. Jim Inhofe (November 17, 1934 – Present)

 Current Age (as of February 2021): 86 years, 2 months, 22 days
 State: Oklahoma
 Political Party: Republican
 Assumed Office: November 16, 1994

 

3. Richard Shelby (May 6, 1934 – Present)

 Current Age (as of February 2021): 86 years, 9 months, 2 days
 State: Alabama
 Political Party: Republican
 Assumed Office: January 3, 1987

 

2. Chuck Grassley (September 17, 1933 – Present)

 Current Age (as of February 2021): 87 years, 4 months, 22 days
 State: Iowa
 Political Party: Republican
 Assumed Office: January 3, 1981

 

1. Dianne Feinstein (June 22, 1933 – Present)

 Current Age (as of February 2021): 87 years, 7 months, 17 days
 State: California
 Political Party: Democratic
 Assumed Office: November 4, 1992

[workswithseed 2037]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

 

5. Patrick Leahy (March 31, 1940 – Present)

 Current Age (as of February 2021): 80 years, 10 months, 8 days
 State: Vermont
 Political Party: Democratic
 Assumed Office: January 3, 1975

 

4. Jim Inhofe (November 17, 1934 – Present)

 Current Age (as of February 2021): 86 years, 2 months, 22 days
 State: Oklahoma
 Political Party: Republican
 Assumed Office: November 16, 1994

 

3. Richard Shelby (May 6, 1934 – Present)

 Current Age (as of February 2021): 86 years, 9 months, 2 days
 State: Alabama
 Political Party: Republican
 Assumed Office: January 3, 1987

 

2. Chuck Grassley (September 17, 1933 – Present)

 Current Age (as of February 2021): 87 years, 4 months, 22 days
 State: Iowa
 Political Party: Republican
 Assumed Office: January 3, 1981

 

1. Dianne Feinstein (June 22, 1933 – Present)

 Current Age (as of February 2021): 87 years, 7 months, 17 days
 State: California
 Political Party: Democratic
 Assumed Office: November 4, 1992

https://www.syracuse.com/politics/2021/11/vermont-democratic-sen-patrick-leahy-81-retiring-after-8-terms.html

[Anastasis 23394]

Bernie slots in after him, assumed office in 2007, so at least this century. 

[Macanudo 12928]

Change the term for Reps from 2 years to 4 years and limit them to 4 terms.    That also takes them out the perpetual fund raising mode.  Limit Senators to 3 terms.     No one should be on the Hill for more than 16 years.   Eliminate campaigning for other politicians.    Win you're on damn election and stay out of other races.   Same goes for POTUS.    He/She, once in office, should not be seen as the leader of their respective party.    

And no one can run for (re)election after the age of 75.    And I could be talked into 70.

[Chuckie Finster 22600]

17 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Yup, no way should we prevent people from being able to elect whomever they want to be their direct representative. 

Not necessarily saying I disagree with the general premise, but a 23 year old cannot be elected no matter how much their district wants to vote for them... so it's not like age restrictions are some crazy foreign concept.