On paper they sound great.  Ohio has them for state level stuff, and it has not prevented a GOPe swamp.

They should have made it something like, "Congress shall meet for 2 weeks every 3 years,unless 3/4 states agree to more".
That may have slowed the rot some.

Doubtful. Power and money inherently flow up and centralize. When it gets too top heavy it’ll be broken up from either within under its own weight by migration/conquest of outsiders. Happens over and over throughout history.

The Founders banked on a citizenry holding them in check, but the Founders had no plan for the 2 party cartel. They feared it, btw, but had no good mechanism to prevent it bastardizing the election process and the voters being too stupid/coddled to seek alternatives.

100% of our problems are voters. Leadership does not elect itself.

"A republic, if you can keep it".

They will vote in lifetime appointments before they vote in term limits.

My gut says campaign money issues are a bigger problem.

They have legislated themselves large, overflowing slush funds, refilled by each law passed that makes their donors richer, thus themselves richer.

Term limits are just part of the problem, a very small part.

Really the bureaucracy needs to be dismantled.

With the advent of remote working this could be done.

How:
1. Decentralize DC.
No more permanent residences in DC.
Residential areas are ceded to VA and MD.
The rest is turned into green areas with hotels for visitors and legislative members when they are in town.

2. All federal agencies are spread throughout the country and they work remotely.
Maybe a core stays behind, but most live amongst regular people.

3. Legislators get a bump in pay but a ten year term limit for congress and 20 for the senate.

Get rid of professional lobbyists and their money and most of them will leave.

There are plenty of people willing to sell their souls. Term limits do nothing.

I see 66% of arfcom has no idea what the game being played is or who the players are. The side of the good will continue to lose.

The concept of term limits is to stop someone we don't like from getting elected over and over. The problem is the politician is not the problem. The opposition party needs to put up better candidates. If the people hate the politician they can choose to not to vote for him as it is. That is all the term limits we need. The Constitution works just fine.

Many bellyache but what have they done to elect the opposition? I'd rather have good reasons to vote for someone than reasons not to vote for someone. That is why we keep getting mini-tyrants. I used to be for term limits but realized that is just a cop out. One third of the country doesn't vote in the most important election in modern times and they whine? Screw them. You want term limits vote for a better candidate. Too much for you to handle, too bad. I want freedom and I oppose either side trying to chip it away.

The people are the root problem of bad politicians. They are also the only Constitutional solution.

We pretty much have that now. How many have been in for decades?

Grassley here is a great example-

A member of the Republican Party, Grassley served eight terms in the Iowa House of Representatives (1959–1975) and three terms in the United States House of Representatives (1975–1981), and been a U.S. Senator since then...


Attached File

Not going to happen...

/Thread

Term limits will absolutely end this republic.  It is an economic scenario, and will create the greatest amount of corruption possible.  If you think our politicians are not accountable now, make it a rule that they are unaccountable and the results will be disastrous.  There will be many people that disagree.

100% correct.  Any man that ignores this information shouldn't be voting to begin with.

Part of the issue is how large districts are, population-wise, relative to their representatives.  The House was designed to only have a ratio of 30,000 persons per representative (and obviously, only some of those would be citizens, and some of those would be voters).  Now it's several hundred thousand per representative.

Another issue is that in many cases the delegation can be excessively representative of the urban areas.

I think that expanding the size of the House plus making it be chosen in districts drawn based upon geography would do far more good than term limits ever could.  No way that we could expand the House to the constitutional ratio, but we should at least try to start at around the same numbers as the House of Commons.  IIRC, it was David Hume who said, though, that the maximum you could have in such a body and still have it function well is around 900.

Part of the issue is how large districts are, population-wise, relative to their representatives.  The House was designed to only have a ratio of 30,000 persons per representative (and obviously, only some of those would be citizens, and some of those would be voters).  Now it's several hundred thousand per representative.

Another issue is that in many cases the delegation can be excessively representative of the urban areas.

I think that expanding the size of the House plus making it be chosen in districts drawn based upon geography would do far more good than term limits ever could.  No way that we could expand the House to the constitutional ratio, but we should at least try to start at around the same numbers as the House of Commons.  IIRC, it was David Hume who said, though, that the maximum you could have in such a body and still have it function well is around 900.

No, my experience is not isolated to California.  I'm just using it as an extreme example.  The same pattern plays out to some extent or another in every State with term limits for its legislature, regardless of which party controls it.  The flaws of term limits are readily apparent in theory, and they appear so regularly where they exist, that their flaws may as well be considered a rule of political theory.  

LOL, Trump has not done much that hasn't been or won't soon be undone by his successor.  His lack of experience resulted in far more poor decisions than good ones.  Overall, his Presidency was pretty crappy.  If he's your positive example of what lack of experience can bring to legislatures, then I don't want a legislature patterned off of your ideas.  And there is a lot to being an effective legislator that does come with longevity, and this is why unelected staffers and others who can maintain longevity tend to gain outsized power and influence.  

And term limits don't limit empires or careers nearly as well as you think they do, as many politicians in States with term limits have proven.  They just have to get more creative about how they go about doing that.

Term limits also don't stop politicians from lining their pockets or providing for their own self-interests.  You see at least as much, because they know they have a limited time to do it.  They still engage in this behavior.  This is far from limited to CA.  Term limits can also engender other forms of corruption, and do in practice.

If you want to limit politicians' time in D.C., the best thing you can do is mandate a part-time Congress.  Have them meet for no more than a few months every other year, and for emergencies or special circumstances otherwise.  Make their pay and emoluments reflect the part-time nature of their job.  Require them to make a living outside of D.C.  Part-time legislatures actually do have benefits in the net in practice, whereas term limits do not.

Senators are intended to represent the State government, not the people, in the Framers' design.

Nationally, it should be noted that Republicans would be guaranteed a filibuster-proof majority, and likely have a 2/3 supermajority, the preponderance of the time (and a perpetual majority overall) if there was no 17th Amendment today.

No they don't.  Term limits just change the way politicians go about shaping their careers.  In no State with legislative term limits have term limits removed the incentives for career politicians, nor eliminated said politicians.  They still proliferate in those States.

It's amazing how little those clamoring most loudly for term limits actually understand them.  Actually, come to think of it, it makes perfect sense.

America was not meant to be ruled from Washington, even back then.  The Federal government was given too little power to really rule over much. Each State for most intents and purposes was its own ruler.  Despite that, giving the Federal government what little extra power it was given over what it had under the Articles was still controversial at the time.

Most States also did not allow their population centers to dominate their governments.  Rural and exurban areas were given a much larger say in things than they have today in the wake of the Reapportionment Cases and further democratization of our country at all levels.

I do wonder at times if there is merit to the idea of dividing the Federal government much like what the Romans did.  Let the States west of the Mississippi be under one Congress and governor, and the States to the east be under another, with a President to oversee those things that absolutely must be done nationally, and Congress meeting briefly at the national level only as needed for legislation on matters that just have to be done nationally.  Devolve even those two governments so that the States still have the bulk of power.

Yeah, how about let's not.

Actual practice and human nature says that yes, the greedy snakes still want in as badly.  And your other ideas are so enormously ludicrous, I'd like to be generous and think you wrote them in gest.  I mean, you do realize that we have gun rights organizations that lobby on our behalf to protect the RKBA, right?  Should that be treason?  Lobbying is how people communicate with their representatives and get their attention.  Heck, it is protected in certain respects as a right in the Bill of Rights.  Talk about absurd and wrong.  A lot of populists like these kinds of outrageous ideas, though (part of why I despise populism).

I know they weren’t meant to be ruled from Washington, but the reality today is that we are.

Short of breaking up the country somehow I don’t see any way to improve things. Of course doing that would have massive geopolitical ramifications, and I’m not entirely sure North America wouldn’t be invaded by China at that point without a US navy to stop them.

I don't know about you, but my life is not ruled by Washington. I can think of very few, if any, things I really want to do that I can't do because of Washington. Yes, the government takes more of my money than I'd like and it spends it in ways I wouldn't but, for the most part, I don't feel the heavy weight of government.


Some things the government does, I actually appreciate. I like knowing the meat I buy has been processed under inspection. I appreciate Interstate highways. Yeah, I think TSA is a pain in the ass (and a bit of a joke) but I like that the NTSB keeps airlines on their toes in regard to safety and that air traffic controllers keep planes from flying into each other.

Lamp posts for all. Then, lamp posts for any new representative that violates the constitution (or even proposes a bill or law that violates the constitution).

Individuals aren’t entirely ruled directly, but we are taxed. And our state governments are hamstrung from doing what their residents want in certain areas due to reliance on federal funding.

I’m of the opinion that state legislatures should pretty much be able to do whatever the residents there tell them to within the bounds of their state constitutions, and the federal constitution shouldn’t be incorporated against the states (as it was in the beginning of this country). Then if you don’t like the direction your states headed you can move to one you find more agreeable, instead of being one homogenous law body.

another issue I have, is that the majority of the taxes I pay go to the feds. I think that’s bull shit. The bulk of taxes paid should go to the nearest governing body, either city or county. Then state. Federal government should get the leftovers not the first cut, if anything.

I hope it stays that way.

If you end up on their radar,you may feel that boot...

would be good, but will never happen as they are the ones that will have to 'vote' that measure in.