If you would vote against a politician you don't like, and you would vote for a politician who was better than the incumbent, why do we need term limits?
I read a book about it and didn’t agree with them but now I do.
It’s hard for a non-wealthy lesser known politician to challenge someone with name recognition and already ensconced in Office. Voters sadly, are not sophisticated enough to say “hey, Bob Smith seems like he does not represent my interests, maybe I should try Bill Jones”. They often don’t even know the issues or where Jones or Smith stand on them. They know Smith is currently in Office and hey, that seems ok.
In IL you have guys like Mike Madigan who had run the state for decades and now his daughter is attorney general.
Term limits are good things
Politicians legislate to protect themselves. Term limits prevent this from causing lasting damage. Just imagine an EO in 1979 limiting suffrage in presidential elections to peanut farmers only.
Because too many people have their personal perceptions and don’t like to rock the very boat they complain about all the time.
Going into politics is not for the faint of heart. Voting for a candidate should be studied with the same clarity.
People don’t vote in these type of elections. Congress reelection rate is somewhere near 96% due to complacency and laziness
Because the vast majority is t engaged and can’t be bothered to look into the candidates
Term limits would help overcome biases and complacency that can occur over time.
In races other than for the White House, many people vote based on name recognition rather than on policies or quality of candidates. The incumbent will almost always win the name recognition contest. In addition, too many elections now are between the lesser of two (or more) evils. The new evil is often less corrupt than the incumbent, established one. Term limits provide a safeguard against the inherent imperfections of both the system and human nature.
Politicians become so entrenched & loaded with money between the backing of their party & the legalized bribery we call campaign financing that it is difficult to defeat an incumbent. Most of the public don’t have the time or will to pay close attention to the details & only see the bumper sticker messages, which can be VERY misleading. So, their votes are apt to go to the one who gets their bumper sticker message out more, the one with the most money.
2 terms for senators & 3 for representatives & that’s all.
Why should everyone lose their right to vote for who they want because some people choose not to exercise it?
Because of the first part of my comment. I’d probably change my mind on this with more fair campaign financing.
Because those assumptions do not represent reality.
I’d be in favor of extending both House and Senate terms if they were term-limited to a single term. ...one shot at policy and no time wasted on re-election.
Oh, and a lifetime ban on lobbying.
We need term limits to avoid any congressmen from building a power base with lobbyists enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayers.
Would you vote against that politician?
If someone with policies I agree with I might. OTOH I play with the rules in place and I wouldn’t vote against him if there was no viable alternative.
There are too many people who just blindly vote down party lines. If you have, say, a crappy Democrat in New York and the Republican is better what are the odds the challenger actually wins?