Term Limits

[SilasCoade 2620]

  

9 hours ago, slorch said:

I don't support term limits, but I would support this.

Time's up.  Go retire...

I'm very curious what the argument against term limits would be. Age limits, term limits, campaign contribution limits. I'm for all the limits.

[Guest]

Vote better.

I just feel it should be up to the citizens to determine their representation.  

Admittedly oversimplified, but there are trade-offs with or without term limits, either way.   Neither set-up is going to magically correct what ails us.

Edited July 29, 2023 by slorch

[hobbes2702 12847]

I understand the argument against term limits for reps, as I feel they should more directly rep people, as naive as that is.

Every other fed spot should be term limited.

[naija 2854]

Some irrational fear that you'd term limit some good/great people out of office I suppose. That'd be one argument.

Another would be loss of institutional knowledge. The art of policy-making and passing as it is.

 

[Degenerate Gardner 4081]

15 minutes ago, naija said:

Some irrational fear that you'd term limit some good/great people out of office I suppose. That'd be one argument.

Another would be loss of institutional knowledge. The art of policy-making and passing as it is.

 

Feinstein proves that losing institutional knowledge can be a risk of choosing aged incumbents, too. She looks lost. The institution is on the ropes and, if not new blood, needs some recently-AARP-eligible blood.

Edited July 29, 2023 by Degenerate Gardner

[conVINCEd 21468]

15 minutes ago, naija said:

Some irrational fear that you'd term limit some good/great people out of office I suppose. That'd be one argument.

Another would be loss of institutional knowledge. The art of policy-making and passing as it is.

 

There needs to be an age limit.  Examples on both sides.  The decline can be quick once you get north of 75.  I say that because I’m witnessing the decline in my parents.  I think it’s fairly typical for their age, but cognitive function is declining.

[locodos 5334]

As my dear old dad says, "every election is a chance to vote for term limits"   Aka vote them out

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

There needs to be an age limit.  Examples on both sides.  The decline can be quick once you get north of 75.  I say that because I’m witnessing the decline in my parents.  I think it’s fairly typical for their age, but cognitive function is declining.

My comment in the OP is actually taken from another thread discussing just that.   I agree with the OP starting a separate thread on Term Limits.

My post  was in support of "No one in the executive or legislative branch can begin a term past age 72. All federal judiciary, including Supreme Court must retire by 76."   by Pescado Rojo

Edited July 29, 2023 by slorch

[Js1 85114]

5 minutes ago, locodos said:

As my dear old dad says, "every election is a chance to vote for term limits"   Aka vote them out

Not wrong. The problem is everyone hates your Congressperson or Senator, but not theirs 

Edited July 29, 2023 by Js1

[locodos 5334]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Not wrong. The problem is everyone hates your Congressperson or Senator, but not theirs 

I fucking hate my senators!

[Js1 85114]

Just now, locodos said:

I fucking hate my senators!

Touché. Me too. But people in Iowa bitch about how DiFi is too old to serve and then they happily re-elect Grassley by 20 points. 

[StassneyHorn 6540]

States where the legislature draws their own maps should have no pensions and 10 year max service.

Those with oversight/commissions, do what you like.

[WBT 20422]

11 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Not wrong. The problem is everyone hates your Congressperson or Senator, but not theirs 

What if I hate all of them?

[Celery Man 20886]

I don't know shit about fuck but if someone like a Feinstein (last cycle) wasn't going to step down.... it's not as simple as "her constituents should vote her out", right? The reality is that it is a much smaller group working shit out and potentially erupting into internecine struggles before Joe the Plumber gets to choose one of the two options at the voting booth. And if Feinstein won't step aside even if she is a million years old, someone has to risk "coming at the king" to knock her off, and would need a lot of political power within the party to do so?

I mean really, maybe I'm just a child walking into a movie theater etc but Grassley will keep getting re-elected as long as he wants because until he goes full Feinstein he'll end anyone who tries to take him out. I'm sure there are negatives but I'm so sick of all these fucking nonagenarians jtfc or close to it pretending like they're still up for it. Get out of the fucking way go read the funny papers.

[elfenix 34172]

term?  nah, i don't feel like getting rid of katie porter any time soon.  age?  yes.

 

Edited July 30, 2023 by elfenix

[Mole 4320]

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/five-reasons-to-oppose-congressional-term-limits/
 

Spoiler

Limiting the number of terms members can serve would:

1. Take power away from voters: Perhaps the most obvious consequence of establishing congressional term limits is that it would severely curtail the choices of voters. A fundamental principle in our system of government is that voters get to choose their representatives. Voter choices are restricted when a candidate is barred from being on the ballot.

2. Severely decrease congressional capacity: Policymaking is a profession in and of itself. Our system tasks lawmakers with creating solutions to pressing societal problems, often with no simple answers and huge likelihoods for unintended consequences. Crafting legislative proposals is a learned skill; as in other professions, experience matters. In fact, as expert analysis has shown with the recently passed Senate tax bill, policy crafted by even the most experienced of lawmakers is likely to have ambiguous provisions and loopholes that undermine the intended effects of the legislation. The public is not best served if inexperienced members are making policy choices with widespread, lasting effects.

Being on the job allows members an opportunity to learn and navigate the labyrinth of rules, precedents and procedures unique to each chamber. Term limits would result in large swaths of lawmakers forfeiting their hard-earned experience while simultaneously requiring that freshman members make up for the training and legislative acumen that was just forced out of the door.

Plus, even with term limits, freshman members would still likely defer to more experienced lawmakers—even those with just one or two terms of service—who are further along the congressional learning curve or who have amassed some level of institutional clout. Much as we see today, this deference would effectively consolidate power in members that have experience in the art of making laws. In other words, a new, though less-experienced, Washington “establishment” would still wield a disproportionate degree of power over policymaking.

Even in instances where staffers, rather than members, lead the charge in crafting policies, it is often the member-to-member interactions that solidify a measure’s final details, build coaltions, and ultimately get legislation passed. Take, for example, the recent Sen. Graham-Sen. Durbin alliance that has recently proposed a bipartisan immigration compromise. Such a partnership is due in no small part to the pair’s long history—Graham and Durbin served two years together in the House and the Senate for 21 years and counting. Term limits would severely hamper the opportunity for these necessary relationships to develop. Strangers in a new environment are in a far worse position to readily trust and rely on their colleagues, particularly from across the aisle.

3. Limit incentives for gaining policy expertise: Members who know their time in Congress is limited will face less pressure to develop expertise on specific issues simply because, in most cases, the knowledge accrued won’t be nearly as valuable in a few short years.

We have seen a semblance of this effect after Republicans limited House committee chairs to six years at the helm. The incentives for chairs to dive deep into the policy details of their committee’s jurisdiction are now limited, given that chairs know they will soon be forced to give up the gavel. (In the 115thCongress alone, an alarming seven House Chairs have announced their retirements from Congress.)

Thus, term limits would impose a tremendous brain drain on the institution. Fewer experienced policymakers in Congress results in increased influence of special interests that are ready and willing to fill the issue-specific information voids. Additionally, a decrease in the number of seasoned lawmakers would result in greater deference to the executive branch and its agencies that administer the laws on a daily basis, given their greater expertise and longer tenure.

4. Automatically kick out effective lawmakers: No matter how knowledgeable or effectual a member may be in the arduous tasks of writing and advancing legislation, term limits would ensure that his or her talents will run up against a strict time horizon. In what other profession do we force the best employees into retirement with no consideration as to their abilities or effectiveness on the job? Doesn’t it make more sense to capitalize on their skills, talents and experience, rather than forcing them to the sidelines where they will do their constituents, the public and the institution far less good? Kicking out popular and competent lawmakers simply because their time runs out ultimately results in a bad return on the investment of time spent learning and mastering the ins and outs of policymaking in Congress.

5. Do little to minimize corruptive behavior or slow the revolving door:

Because term limits have never existed on the federal level, political scientists have studied states’ and foreign governments’ experiences with term limits to project what effects the measure would have on Congress. These studies regularly find that many of the corruptive, ‘swampy,’ influences advocates contend would be curtailed by instituting term limits are, in fact, exacerbated by their implementation.

Take lobbyist influence, for example. Term limit advocates contend lawmakers unconcerned with reelection will rebuff special interest pressures in favor of crafting and voting for legislation solely on its merits. However, the term limit literature commonly finds that more novice legislators will look to fill their own informational and policy gaps by an increased reliance on special interests and lobbyists. Relatedly, lawmakers in states with term limits have been found—including from this 2006 50-state survey—to increase deference to agencies, bureaucrats, and executives within their respective states and countries simply because the longer serving officials have more experience with the matters.

Advocates also suggest that limiting the number of terms lawmakers can serve will ultimately result in fewer members looking to capitalize on their Hill relationships and policymaking experience by becoming lobbyists themselves. Establishing term limits, however, would likely worsen the revolving door problem between Congress and the private sector given that mandating member exits ensures a predictable and consistently high number of former members available to peddle their influence. The revolving door phenomenon is considered a normative problem without term limits and relatively few departing members per cycle. With term limits, the number of influential former members would drastically increase, giving more private sector landing spots to members whose time has run out. More lobbying firms would have members able to advance their special interests with former members making use of their relationships and deep understanding of the ways of the Hill.

On the surface, the case for term limits is strong given their potential to curtail the forces of corruption that so many assume dictate the ways of Washington. But, precisely because the creation of successful public policies by even the most experienced of officials is so difficult and uncertain, we should not mandate that our most effective and seasoned lawmakers be forced out of the institution. Instead, as constituents, we should rely on the most effective mechanism available to remove unresponsive, ineffectual members of Congress: elections.

 

[SilasCoade 2620]

15 hours ago, slorch said:

Vote better.

I just feel it should be up to the citizens to determine their representation.  

Admittedly oversimplified, but there are trade-offs with or without term limits, either way.   Neither set-up is going to magically correct what ails us.

I understand that term limits might have drawbacks too, but it's naive to just say "vote better". In our fucked up two party system the incumbent has huge advantages that make it difficult to get them primaried out unless they run afoul of the political machine. So then the choice ends up being the probably corrupt 12 term octogenarian or the dude that wants to instill the Christian version of Sharia law. You have to incentivize the machine to not allow power to congeal on individuals and to put forth moderate candidates that can attract voters from both sides.

[hpslugga 4044]

“As long as politics is the shadow of big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance.”

-John Dewey

[SilasCoade 2620]

11 hours ago, Mole said:

Limiting the number of terms members can serve would:

1. Take power away from voters: 

Spoiler

Perhaps the most obvious consequence of establishing congressional term limits is that it would severely curtail the choices of voters. A fundamental principle in our system of government is that voters get to choose their representatives. Voter choices are restricted when a candidate is barred from being on the ballot.

False. I would argue that allowing Mitch McConnell to run indefinitely curtails the choices of voters because of the inherent advantages an incumbent has in our system.

 

2. Severely decrease congressional capacity: 

Spoiler

Policymaking is a profession in and of itself. Our system tasks lawmakers with creating solutions to pressing societal problems, often with no simple answers and huge likelihoods for unintended consequences. Crafting legislative proposals is a learned skill; as in other professions, experience matters. In fact, as expert analysis has shown with the recently passed Senate tax bill, policy crafted by even the most experienced of lawmakers is likely to have ambiguous provisions and loopholes that undermine the intended effects of the legislation. The public is not best served if inexperienced members are making policy choices with widespread, lasting effects.

Being on the job allows members an opportunity to learn and navigate the labyrinth of rules, precedents and procedures unique to each chamber. Term limits would result in large swaths of lawmakers forfeiting their hard-earned experience while simultaneously requiring that freshman members make up for the training and legislative acumen that was just forced out of the door.

Plus, even with term limits, freshman members would still likely defer to more experienced lawmakers—even those with just one or two terms of service—who are further along the congressional learning curve or who have amassed some level of institutional clout. Much as we see today, this deference would effectively consolidate power in members that have experience in the art of making laws. In other words, a new, though less-experienced, Washington “establishment” would still wield a disproportionate degree of power over policymaking.

Even in instances where staffers, rather than members, lead the charge in crafting policies, it is often the member-to-member interactions that solidify a measure’s final details, build coaltions, and ultimately get legislation passed. Take, for example, the recent Sen. Graham-Sen. Durbin alliance that has recently proposed a bipartisan immigration compromise. Such a partnership is due in no small part to the pair’s long history—Graham and Durbin served two years together in the House and the Senate for 21 years and counting. Term limits would severely hamper the opportunity for these necessary relationships to develop. Strangers in a new environment are in a far worse position to readily trust and rely on their colleagues, particularly from across the aisle.

3. Limit incentives for gaining policy expertise: 

Spoiler

Members who know their time in Congress is limited will face less pressure to develop expertise on specific issues simply because, in most cases, the knowledge accrued won’t be nearly as valuable in a few short years.

We have seen a semblance of this effect after Republicans limited House committee chairs to six years at the helm. The incentives for chairs to dive deep into the policy details of their committee’s jurisdiction are now limited, given that chairs know they will soon be forced to give up the gavel. (In the 115thCongress alone, an alarming seven House Chairs have announced their retirements from Congress.)

Thus, term limits would impose a tremendous brain drain on the institution. Fewer experienced policymakers in Congress results in increased influence of special interests that are ready and willing to fill the issue-specific information voids. Additionally, a decrease in the number of seasoned lawmakers would result in greater deference to the executive branch and its agencies that administer the laws on a daily basis, given their greater expertise and longer tenure.

4. Automatically kick out effective lawmakers: 

Spoiler

No matter how knowledgeable or effectual a member may be in the arduous tasks of writing and advancing legislation, term limits would ensure that his or her talents will run up against a strict time horizon. In what other profession do we force the best employees into retirement with no consideration as to their abilities or effectiveness on the job? Doesn’t it make more sense to capitalize on their skills, talents and experience, rather than forcing them to the sidelines where they will do their constituents, the public and the institution far less good? Kicking out popular and competent lawmakers simply because their time runs out ultimately results in a bad return on the investment of time spent learning and mastering the ins and outs of policymaking in Congress.

The above three items are all variants of the same argument, essentially the loss of institutional knowledge argument. One could mitigate this through the details of term limits such as 3 terms vs 5 terms vs some stipulation on the number of terms one could be the senior position from one's state/district. This also excludes the possibility of incoming legislators recognizing the value their predecessors represent. The incoming legislators need chiefs of staff and policy advisors. Isn't it better to hire someone for those positions that knows their way through the jungle rather than someone who's never been in the shit? Number 4 above in particular presents an important and rarely recognized assumption. Essentially the argument that other professions don't enforce retirement without regard to abilities assumes that politics was intended to be and should continue to be a lifelong career rather than an interval of service to the state. Additionally the idea that this does not happen in other professions is simply not true. In fact, the closest analogy is the military where people get retired all the time in the "up or out" policy.

 

5. Do little to minimize corruptive behavior or slow the revolving door:

Spoiler

Because term limits have never existed on the federal level, political scientists have studied states’ and foreign governments’ experiences with term limits to project what effects the measure would have on Congress. These studies regularly find that many of the corruptive, ‘swampy,’ influences advocates contend would be curtailed by instituting term limits are, in fact, exacerbated by their implementation.

Take lobbyist influence, for example. Term limit advocates contend lawmakers unconcerned with reelection will rebuff special interest pressures in favor of crafting and voting for legislation solely on its merits. However, the term limit literature commonly finds that more novice legislators will look to fill their own informational and policy gaps by an increased reliance on special interests and lobbyists. Relatedly, lawmakers in states with term limits have been found—including from this 2006 50-state survey—to increase deference to agencies, bureaucrats, and executives within their respective states and countries simply because the longer serving officials have more experience with the matters.

Advocates also suggest that limiting the number of terms lawmakers can serve will ultimately result in fewer members looking to capitalize on their Hill relationships and policymaking experience by becoming lobbyists themselves. Establishing term limits, however, would likely worsen the revolving door problem between Congress and the private sector given that mandating member exits ensures a predictable and consistently high number of former members available to peddle their influence. The revolving door phenomenon is considered a normative problem without term limits and relatively few departing members per cycle. With term limits, the number of influential former members would drastically increase, giving more private sector landing spots to members whose time has run out. More lobbying firms would have members able to advance their special interests with former members making use of their relationships and deep understanding of the ways of the Hill.

On the surface, the case for term limits is strong given their potential to curtail the forces of corruption that so many assume dictate the ways of Washington. But, precisely because the creation of successful public policies by even the most experienced of officials is so difficult and uncertain, we should not mandate that our most effective and seasoned lawmakers be forced out of the institution. Instead, as constituents, we should rely on the most effective mechanism available to remove unresponsive, ineffectual members of Congress: elections.

This seems like the most valid argument against, but I suggest there are flaws here as well. One flaw is conflating the problem of term limits with the problem of reliance on lobbyists. Increased limits and regulations on lobbyists and campaign finance reform could go a long way to limiting the revolving door by de-incentivizing the corporate billionaire class from hiring lobbyists in the first place. It also again ignores the potential for incoming legislators to retain their predecessors in advisory roles.

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

“As long as politics is the shadow of big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance.”

-John Dewey

That is straight up mainlining truth.

[wildcat09 29260]

Ahem. The TLDR is that term limits increase partisanship and lobbyist influence and there's a whole lot of data to back this up.

A useful tool for understanding something like this is simply to ask yourself are Republican politicians for or against it? They sure as shit aren't interested in more effective governance. Their entire agenda is to destroy government, except for the parts that beat up and arrest people they don't like.  They hate the idea of a government that actually represents and serves the interests of all Americans. So why would they be supporting a reform that they thought would result in more effective governance?

[Steamboat1874 4032]

One of the things I like about term limits is that it keeps someone holding office from spending all of their time trying to get re-elected instead of doing things that matter.

[wildcat09 29260]

One thing I like about term limits is their proponents have a lot of theoretical arguments to support them that have been conclusively disproven by decades of data, but they just keep thinking their theoretical arguments must be correct.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10145]

Term limits or age limits.... I'm ok with either one or both.... something is obviously needed though

[locodos 5334]

nvrmnd

Edited July 31, 2023 by locodos

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

I support age limits.  You cannot run for public office if you would take office after turning 75.  If you are a senator, and win while 74, and take the oath of office at 74, you can serve out that term, but you are prohibited from running again.  Period.  And I would say that you have that age line be the line for judges.  You must announce your retirement within a month of your 75th birthday, and it can be for no more than 12 months later.  

 

[SilasCoade 2620]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

One thing I like about term limits is their proponents have a lot of theoretical arguments to support them that have been conclusively disproven by decades of data, but they just keep thinking their theoretical arguments must be correct.

I don't think you're reading those studies with a critical eye. Oh noes, this century old system did not immediately adapt to an abrupt disruption. The disrupting policy therefore must be bad. Give me a 50 year study to compare ten minutes versus none. Also is great that these studies highlight pitfalls of term limits. Why not legislate ways to address those when instituting term limits? Implementation details.

[GopherRock 1765]

I have yet to hear any good argument from any quarters for term limits that stand up to scrutiny. All you end up with is a Legislature lacking in institutional knowledge and totally reliant on Big Lobby.

There are already mandatory retirement ages in the federal system. That would be a far more effective improvement.

[henrygandorf 29179]

age limits and term limits are super fun to talk about, but something tells me you won't get much help passing it or proving that it's constitutional to do so.  call it a hunch.