Kind of a tangent discussion but I really wish term limits were universal with some of these positions of power. Both here and abroad. Politicians are enticed to vote or legislate a certain way most of the time because they know if they don't go with the party they won't get party support in a subsequent election so the will of the constituents usually comes 2nd behind this. A person that knows they're elected and in 2, 4, 6 years they're out in my opinion is much more like to really hold to their initial promises.

In the US, why the fuck do we still have people in congress that have been there for 30 years in 2020? How do they know what's best for their states or districts when they've lived most of their adult life in DC? I understand why term limits haven't become a thing because congress would really have to vote on it and obviously, they're not going to cannibalize themselves but at some point, they have to stop pretending that this is the will of the people. The only reason it hasn't come up is that both parties would lose power and sway.

I'm not sure who's going to give voice to this but someone needs to.

Because people still vote for them! If AOC can take down one of the highest ranking Democratic members, then it's possible for anyone to do it provided that they represent the will of the people. In CA, term limits have been a disaster. These newcomers have no idea what they are doing and only listen to consultants and lobbyists. Ultimately, the will of the people will only be represented if the people consistently vote.

AOC won a primary in a fast-changing district against an incumbent who was no longer a good fit for his district; in an extremely low turnout election (I think 8% or so turnout), and only because her opponent was caught not just napping but comatose. Also note that Crowley didnt have high name recognition, as opposed to Pelosi/Schumer/Clyburn/McConnell. Basically, once you have enough name recognition and sit in a safe state or district, you can hold on to it for life if you dont fuck up monumentally.

I agree, however, that certain institutional knowledge must be preserved and cant be passed on every 8 or so years. There are counterexamples to this "corrupt, out of touch, ossified career politicians"-trope. There are politicians who are decent, competent, well-liked and good for the body they're sitting in. People like Chuck Grassley.


My suggestion would be a congressional term limit of 18 years. That's 9 terms in the House or 3 terms in the Senate. It's enough to climb the ranks, enough to pick up institutional knowledge and to pass it on to the next generation - but it is not enough to plan you whole life's career around.

LOL A DISTRICT OF 15,000 voters
are you even joking

Seeing the people wiping down the podium between speakers is so refreshing. Finally we'll have sane people running government again.

This post was edited by IceMage on Dec 9 2020 01:56pm

And why do people vote for the same people for 30 years? The naive answer is they do a good job the realistic answer is because they have PAC money backing as well as basically the political machine working for them which actually means a fuck ton. That's why you have so little stepping out of the party because it's incredibly hard to win if your party dumps their support of you in various ways.

There could be a decent compromise. Not saying limit congresspeople to one term but what about 2 terms for Senate and 3-5 for reps?

i say 12 years period. 2 senate terms and 6 house terms. some argue churn isnt good but thats bullshit, churn exists in every industry and govt shouldnt be any different

That's correct. However, we've seen that that's not the end all be all. Personally, I think we need to have more voter engagement at the primary level. Primaries are far more important than the general election because you're choosing the direction of your party. Alas, voter engagement in the primaries is dreadfully low and I think that's a massive contributor to incumbency power.

We need to reduce the Federal government in almost all aspects. Mainly, the concept that states year to year have to attempt to put together balanced budgets while big brother can print fiat really breaks down our whole system. It's been decades of Federal waste on the shoulders of states.

Founders intended for constituents to spend more energy on local and state. Instead, we spend it on national politics Potus specifically, and celebrity reps.

This post was edited by RedFromWinter on Dec 9 2020 02:42pm

I think that's the natural course of things. In order to compete on the world stage, you need a strong central government. The Founders would be furious that we haven't had several new Constitutions since it's inception.