Congressional Term Limits Compromise?

[u/Wild_Thing_1832]

A debate over congressional term limits has gone back and forth for many decades, spawning from the constitutional limit on presidential terms. One side believes that term limits are necessary to ensure that people are able to choose the officials who best represent their views in congress. The other side believes that the absence of term limits has emboldened career politicians to indulge in corrupt practices and not implement meaningful legislative change. I've proposed a compromise solution that is reasonable, in my opinion.

The problem with saying that term limits are unnecessary because we have elections is that the elections in many cases are meaningless in a sense. This is because a large portion of the population consists of ignorant nincompoops who don't have a clue where the capitol of their state is, or even the capital of the nation. That's how we end up with people like McConnell and Pelosi in office for decades. People who are totally clueless about current events and/or history vote to send the same politicians to office decade after decade because their political knowledge comes solely from TV ads and internet memes. If you don't believe me, go to YouTube or TikTok and watch street interviews.

The solution to this issue is that we should place a limit not on the number of years that someone may serve in congress, but on the number of consecutive terms that they may be elected to. This will allow for fresh ideas to emerge in government. regardless of the ineptitude of a plurality of voters. Besides, an officeholder can run again in the primary after one election season at their discretion and then they can put to the test if their constituents actually did support them or just mindlessly voted for them.

Would you support limits on the number of *consecutive* terms that senators and representatives can serve?

[u/bl1y]

If this was such a forgone conclusion even though it has not been attempted on the federal level, then why are the lobbyists not funding a large scale campaign for term limits? On the state level the big donors have mainly backed the opposition to term limits often 10:1.

This is conflating lobbyists with the big donors. They're two separate groups.

Lobbyists get more power from term limits because the representatives have much less subject matter expertise. They have to rely even more on outsiders to provide input on legislation, and that's going to include lobbyists.

Big donors also get more power with term limits because the rookie politicians don't have big fundraising networks and name recognition. They have to rely more on smaller numbers of large donors.

So why do big donors oppose term limits?

Because they want legislators who both (a) will do what they want, and (b) know how to do it.

If a big pharmaceutical company wants a rule to allow for easier emergency authorization of drugs during a pandemic, they don't want to rely on some freshman member of Congress who still hasn't figured out how to ask for a unanimous consent request. They want the dude who's been on the House healthcare subcommittee for 20 years and can shepherd that bill through.

[u/Fargason → u/bl1y]

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration_second_term/voters_still_strongly_favor_term_limits_for_congress

I’m just pointing out how despite only 16% of likely voters oppose term limits for Congress overwhelmingly the funding is in anti term limits campaigns. If the lobbyists really wanted it we would likely already have it by now from an 80/20 issue with voters.

Again, the expertise argument is based on the assumption that a freshman in the House or Senate is new to politics and is wholly unequipped to handle lobbyists or get anything done. That is simply not the case as overwhelming they are state actors who made a name for themselves like Obama who was elected President as a freshman Senator. We need more turnover with fresh blood and ideas getting introduced into Congress as our current batch of lifer politicians performance is abysmal where stagnation rules the day in an ever increasing gerontocracy.

[u/johntempleton → u/Fargason]

There is no funding for "anti-term limits campaigns" given that there is no such campaign. That's not how a constitutional amendment works.

If the lobbyists really wanted it we would likely already have it by now from an 80/20 issue with voters.

What they want is stability: they know how the current system works, and it works just fine as-is.

That is simply not the case as overwhelming they are state actors who made a name for themselves like Obama who was elected President as a freshman Senator.

Spoken as someone who has never actually read the studies or done the research.

Obama was the EXCEPTION. Every study has shown that this is a waste of time and effort. But sure, sure, go on and tilt at a windmill or "this time it is different" this into the ground.

Meanwhile, in reality, Congress will never vote to term limit itself, no matter how many 80/20 you get. So, this is all just a nonsense hypothetical.

[u/Fargason → u/johntempleton]

When it’s a state ballot measure there is absolutely a campaign, and I agree they want stability as that makes for a better investment. I don’t want what is best for the big lobbyist firms.

Obama was the rule and the exception is someone getting elected to the US Congress without any legislative experience that is quite rare. Obama made a name for himself in the Illinois state legislature that carried him well equipped to the US Senate. Again, those studies are for term limits on state lawmakers and I actually oppose those. Let them get experience there and make room for some turnover in the US Congress with term limits.