Amazon.com Widgets

Should limits exist on the number of terms elected officials may serve?

  • Where are the new ideas?

    When you have politicians spending their entire career as a senator or congressman of course no one will bring new ideas to the table. As others have already pointed out they vote the way of the party because they don't want to be outcasts. We need new people in there every few years so that things get shaken up a bit and the people get what they want instead of what financial backers and the party wants. Get rid of the dinosaurs make it competitive again and maybe some things will change for the good.

  • Gridlock in Washington

    Representatives are not supporting those that elected them, instead they are coerced into voting the party way.
    This is why nothing important to the people of the United States is being completed. The budget they have not been able to reach a compromise on.
    They should cut all spending outside the United States before they think about cutting senior programs.
    They should not enact any cut that does not include them selves. They should have the same benefits as seniors have, no more and no less.

  • 2 Term limit with non-consecutive clause for any elected office

    Given the 2 party system it is hard to inject real fresh blood into the elected offices. People really don't want to do the research even during primaries. So, I propose any elected official cannot be in the office for more than 3 terms in the federal government across house, senate and white house. And the terms cannot be consecutive to minimize the influence of election politics and to allow for wise/common sense driven policy making and have them fully dedicate time to people that elected them for each full term. They shouldn't be allowed to fund raise either. Lately, the moment someone is elected, he/she starts an indirect campaign for the next term. This will also reduce the entrenchment of power in DC.

  • The President is limited to 2 terms... it just makes sense that everyone else would be limited too.

    Both the house and the senate have members who have been in office for 20+ years (almost 30 in the case of Mitch McConnell). These of these members naturally elevate to positions of "leadership", and ultimately have far more influence than newly elected members. Add to this the pressure on each member to push their party platform agenda, and you end up the Washington we have today... a few senior people that control the senate/house and all but nullify any fresh thinking, problem solving and leadership that new members may bring to the table. The gridlock we're seeing never going to end until younger senators & representatives get the opportunity to truly effect change.

  • Younger people

    I do not feel some in their 60's should represent someone in their 20's and 30's. They are much to out of touch with views of the younger generations. They set the system up to perpetuate their own existence. Sorry, people will learn the twists to our system. Fix it, and turn the voting policies back to the people.

  • Nothing Is Being Done

    I feel there needs to be at least a two year term limit on those running for any form of office. With the same people in office our government remains in gridlock. If more moderate and humble politcians ran for office and won, our governmnet would move into a more posperous form.

  • Limited Term of Office would alow the "people" to run the goverment.

    The biggest problem is that only the rich run for office in the federal government. A normal working class Joe has no chance to ever be elected. With limited terms and removal of PACs and all the politicians limited to a reasonable amount of money to spend, the playing field is leveled. The people would be able to vote for our neighbors and not the upper 10 percent. I would bet that there would be more cooperation across the parties.

  • I believe there should be a limit on the number of terms an individual can serve in any political office so that the government could consist of public servants rather than career politicians.

    Our current system, which allows most political offices to be held for an unlimited number of terms provided the individual receives adequate votes, allows for career politicians whose only goal is to serve their own interests. If we placed a limit on terms, it would allow a proper rotation of citizens serving in office as true representatives of the people and reduce the ease of lobbyists to buy favors from politicians.

    Posted by: FairMckinley99
  • Elected officials should have limited numbers of terms because new ideas are a part of democracy.

    Term limits for elected officials are a very good idea, because democracy works best when new people and ideas are brought to the table. When someone stays in office for decades at a time, there is no chance for younger people to get involved in politics. The voice of younger people is important, as they have the most to lose from a system of government in the long term.

    Posted by: babyuniqh
  • Joseph Huffman

    Political office should never become a lifetime profession.Go there do your turn and leave.

  • Term limits are not worth it

    1.Term limits kick out the good leaders who may deserve to stay in office for excellent work.
    2. Every job has a learning curve, and Congress is no exception. Any new politicians would have to go through that when they come into office.
    3. Politicians that leave office take with them a lot of experience and contacts that are essential to get things done. New leaders would have to develop these from scratch.
    4. Politicians who are in the last term of office are more likely to ignore the will of the people since they don't face the wrath of the electorate in the future.

  • No term of office limits should be imposed on elected officials.

    The American political system, while not perfect, is a well balanced machine which achieves its fundamental goals. Individuals who hold elective office should not be constrained by term limits inasmuch as certain objectives cannot be completed within the term of office. What people do not realize is the fact that the American people already have the power to remove public officials. When the term of office is about to expire, the people have the right to choose a different person to hold the office. Candidates often win reelection not because of name recognition, but due to the fact they have actually done a good job while in office and deserve to be reelected.

    Posted by: AGalloway
  • Senators and Representatives in Congress Be Limited to a Certain Number of Terms in Office?

    1.Term limits kick out the good leaders who may deserve to stay in office for excellent work.
    2.Every job has a learning curve, and Congress is no exception. Any new politicians would have to go through that when they come into office.
    3.Politicians that leave office take with them a lot of experience and contacts that are essential to get things done. New leaders would have to develop these from scratch.
    4.Politicians who are in the last term of office are more likely to ignore the will of the people since they don't face the wrath of the electorate in the future.

  • I believe that the issue is not how long elected officials serve in office, but the power that they hold.

    This issues is not limitting the number of terms officials can serve in office. After all it is the duty of the American people to vote for the office, therefore allowing constant change, as long as that's what the people want. The real problem is how much power elected officials have. We need to vote for people that will propose bills to reduce federal power and give it back to the local governments, and vote for people that will have good stewardship over the power they are granted.

  • No, because limiting how many terms an official can serve only turns them into a shortsighted fool.

    In theory, limiting how many terms an elected official can serve would help prevent the abuse of power. But in practice, it will turn out people like the president. Someone who knows that they will not be in office next year to deal with the fall out of a foolish plan, so they don't care. Plus, it is easy enough to get a corrupt, lazy or incompetent official into office. But if they actually manage to elect an honest official, I would hate to have to kick him out of office because his number of terms is up.

    Posted by: H_Baird
  • Everybody knows that individual politicians are like cast members of Cats, individuals may change but the show goes on.

    Term limits on politicians indicates more administration change than is likely to be happening, it's like painting a happy face on a warhead. What we need is less law and fewer politicians, and that won't be the end result of changing them around more often. Fewer politicians will be like having fewer cats. No one cares if the neighborhood cat lady has the same 118 cats or if she rotates them with other cats, they just want the stink, mess, public nuisance and eyesore gone from their neighborhood. Why change the around when we simply want less of them, period?

    Posted by: groovybox
  • They should not limit the number of terms elected officials may serve.

    I do not believe they should limit the number of terms elected officials can serve. Especially with presidents they really should not limit the terms they can serve. If the official is doing the job correctly they should not limit it. If the official is not they should be able to get a new one without so much work to do it.

    Posted by: barbiegirll

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.