What if the US Congress had term limits?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-06-02 01:24am

Quite simply, suppose Constitutional Conventions are held in every state, and the citizens of the U.S. push through a new Amendment which restricts the number of terms a Senator or Representative may serve. Say, six terms for House of Reps and two terms for Senate... although feel free to suggest different limits if those are too short/long.

What happens to American politics?

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-06-02 01:28am

Suddenly career politicians aren't any more. It would certainly shake up the US political spectrum every few years.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2004-06-02 01:38am

Nothing would change. Politicians would seek other office. We have term limits here in California and nothing ever came of it. Politicians are still politicians. I actually think it makes things worse.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2004-06-02 02:14am

I think they sometimes get worse because corruption will increase to meet the demand of career politicians to stay in one government post or another, i.e. they trade seats for favors.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-06-02 02:20am

Politicians might work harder if there were term limits. Since they will not reelected again they will try to their best in the limited number of terms they have.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-06-02 02:25am

What if George Bush was not limited to two terms?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-06-02 02:39am

Then neither would Clinton be, and we'd still have a Democratic White House

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-06-02 11:06am

We would have a whole new era of party bosses and a lot more corruption. With term limits and the way the system is set up, candidates couldn't use their popularity with the electorate to give them leeway when it came to bucking the party line. Instead, the turnover would mean that candidates were simply voting machines for the local party bosses until it was their time to leave. Before anyone makes a comment about this already being the case, remember that incumbency gives a candidate a lot of power, both by his popularity with voters and the greater influence in Washington that a politician gains as time goes by. There's a reason Arlen Spector is still tolorated by the Republican Party, even though he's considered by many to be a RINO.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-02 11:52am

MKSheppard wrote:What if George Bush was not limited to two terms?

Then he wouldn't be president. Clinton would've eaten him for lunch in 2000.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-06-02 12:07pm

Durandal wrote:Then he wouldn't be president. Clinton would've eaten him for lunch in 2000.

Which raises an interesting point, would Reagan have managed to
hold on until 1993?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-06-02 12:09pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Durandal wrote:Then he wouldn't be president. Clinton would've eaten him for lunch in 2000.
Which raises an interesting point, would Reagan have managed to
hold on until 1993?

Without a doubt, he would definitely have won a third term.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-06-02 12:15pm

Joe wrote:Without a doubt, he would definitely have won a third term.

And a fourth, before dying in office in 1995, or something.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-06-02 12:15pm

Hrm, would GHWB win the '92 election, then?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-02 01:55pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Joe wrote:Without a doubt, he would definitely have won a third term.
And a fourth, before dying in office in 1995, or something.

I don't know about that. His family might not have let him on account of his developing Alzheimer's.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-06-03 01:51am

phongn wrote:Hrm, would GHWB win the '92 election, then?

I can't see this being much of an issue; if Reagan runs, then GHWB won't be running because they're both GOP. If GHWB runs, he won't be fighting an incumbent.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2004-06-03 12:01pm

Would the 6 terms in the House and 2 in the Senate be seperate limits or a cumulative limit of 12 years in congress? If the former, it would still allow for a 24 year stint in Congress, and my understanding is that the majority of Senators first serve as Representatives. Counting working their way up through the state legislature it wouldn't be much of a change, aside from putting an end to certain Senate fiefdoms like Byrd's or Kennedy's. Of course, if they're popular enough to get sent back to the Senate over and over, they're also probably popular enough that their endorsement would be a substantial advantage for the next candidate. In the latter case, I'd expect it to just further reinforce the sort of short-sighted planning already evident in Congress. Overall, I can't see term limits being an improvement. The system will adjust and we'll be back where we started, with the added drawback of not being able to re-elect members of Congress whose performance we approve of more than x times.