Term Limits - A Good Thing?

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Term Limits

I have been on both sides of this debate and perhaps could still argue both ways, but I am now inclined to think that there should be term limits for member of Congress.

Clearly there is no legal basis and one could argue that a good person deserves to be re-elected forever if that’s what people want, but educated voting is not the strong point for many Americans.

On the other hand, it is also clear that being a member of Congress was originally viewed as a public service for a period of time and not intended as a career.

It seems to me that the longer a person is in Congress the more detached they become from the average person they represent, the more they become aligned with a party, subject to influence and ever more focused on getting reelected.

Those are not good things in my view. Wouldn’t American be better serviced by people who are more focused on doing the right thing, than doing what helps them get reelected?

What if a Member of the House were elected for nine years? That would give them sufficient time to learn the ropes, to accomplish something and then move on to the real world. Likewise, a Senator would be elected for 12 years and then move on in all cases.

There are pros and cons to the status quo, but with the high degree of party influence and partician politics, it seems to me that America and Americans would be better served with limits and with Legislators who are not influenced more by the next election than any other factor.



The facts:

At the beginning of the 107th Congress, the average length of service of Representatives is nearly 9 years or four and a half terms, slightly longer than that of the 105th and 106th Congresses. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) has the longest consecutive service of any Member of the 107th Congress (46 years).

At the beginning of the 107th Congress, the average length of service of Senators is nearly 11½ years, slightly less than two terms. Senators are elected for 6-year terms. Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) served longer (46 years) than any other Member of the Senate in history. Senator Robert Byrd (DWV) is the Democrat with the longest Senate service in history. His service began on January 3, 19

[spot]

What an extraordinary suggestion. We in the UK tend to do things differently to the way they're managed in the US. The Upper Chamber of our bicameral government contains predominantly people appointed for life on the basis of their perceived suitability. 95 of them - from memory - are appointed from the ranks of the aristocracy by the remainder, another 400 or so by the Prime Minister of the time they were elevated. 26 more are appointed by the established Church of England though their membership is ex officio, not personal. Oh, all the members of our Supreme Court are lifetime members there as well. It wouldn't suit America, I presume, but these arrangements do a fine job here.

My point, I think, is that retaining experience is a wonderful thing. The Earl of Stockton, for example, produced the greatest and most influential speech of his life there in 1985 the year before he died. He was 91 when he gave it. He was magnificent, he played his spellbound audience like a fly fisher taking a pike. As Harold MacMillan he'd been our Prime Minister between 1957 and 1963. We don't throw people like that onto the scrap heap.

[gmc]

spot;981974 wrote: What an extraordinary suggestion. We in the UK tend to do things differently to the way they're managed in the US. The Upper Chamber of our bicameral government contains predominantly people appointed for life on the basis of their perceived suitability. 95 of them - from memory - are appointed from the ranks of the aristocracy by the remainder, another 400 or so by the Prime Minister of the time they were elevated. 26 more are appointed by the established Church of England though their membership is ex officio, not personal. Oh, all the members of our Supreme Court are lifetime members there as well. It wouldn't suit America, I presume, but these arrangements do a fine job here.

My point, I think, is that retaining experience is a wonderful thing. The Earl of Stockton, for example, produced the greatest and most influential speech of his life there in 1985 the year before he died. He was 91 when he gave it. He was magnificent, he played his spellbound audience like a fly fisher taking a pike. As Harold MacMillan he'd been our Prime Minister between 1957 and 1963. We don't throw people like that onto the scrap heap.


On the other hand we've also seen the rise of the professional politician who become apparatchiks of the party machine scared to step out of line. Remember the debates about Iraq? All the nodding dogs sitting in a row when they must have known it was all bullshit.

[spot]

gmc;982021 wrote: On the other hand we've also seen the rise of the professional politician who become apparatchiks of the party machine scared to step out of line. Remember the debates about Iraq? All the nodding dogs sitting in a row when they must have known it was all bullshit.


It's been the Upper House which has produced the critical debates on Iraq. With the exception of George Galloway's ten minute blistering attack in the Commons, Robin Cook resigning and Claire Short banging a few heads your description's accurate as far as the elected politicians are concerned.

[gmc]

spot;982030 wrote: It's been the Upper House which has produced the critical debates on Iraq. With the exception of George Galloway's ten minute blistering attack in the Commons, Robin Cook resigning and Claire Short banging a few heads your description's accurate as far as the elected politicians are concerned.


Depressing isn't it. On the other hand PR has livened things up considerably in scotland to the extent labour are now terrified at what will happen at the next election. I would like to see it throughout the UK but neither of the main parties will support it as they know only too well they would never have an overall majority again.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

spot;981974 wrote: What an extraordinary suggestion. We in the UK tend to do things differently to the way they're managed in the US. The Upper Chamber of our bicameral government contains predominantly people appointed for life on the basis of their perceived suitability. 95 of them - from memory - are appointed from the ranks of the aristocracy by the remainder, another 400 or so by the Prime Minister of the time they were elevated. 26 more are appointed by the established Church of England though their membership is ex officio, not personal. Oh, all the members of our Supreme Court are lifetime members there as well. It wouldn't suit America, I presume, but these arrangements do a fine job here.

My point, I think, is that retaining experience is a wonderful thing. The Earl of Stockton, for example, produced the greatest and most influential speech of his life there in 1985 the year before he died. He was 91 when he gave it. He was magnificent, he played his spellbound audience like a fly fisher taking a pike. As Harold MacMillan he'd been our Prime Minister between 1957 and 1963. We don't throw people like that onto the scrap heap.


Experience is a wonderful thing, I just retired after 47 years on the job with the same company, but when it comes to government I worry more about keeping the lifers in office who are mediocre at best more than I do forcing out those who are very good. The problem in the US is that doing what it takes to get reelectred is more important in the decision making process than anything else. Of course, I have to admit that appointing someone for life solves that problem as well. Our Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and for good reason I suspect.

[gmc]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;982092 wrote: Experience is a wonderful thing, I just retired after 47 years on the job with the same company, but when it comes to government I worry more about keeping the lifers in office who are mediocre at best more than I do forcing out those who are very good. The problem in the US is that doing what it takes to get reelectred is more important in the decision making process than anything else. Of course, I have to admit that appointing someone for life solves that problem as well. Our Supreme Court justices are appointed for life and for good reason I suspect.


If you are not dependent on a politician for your job the theory is you can be independent and do what you think is right. It's the house of lords here that has stopped our elected government in the pursuit of their more blatant attempts to infringe our civil liberties. In practice parliament is supreme but the lords act as a good check. Just as senate and congress are supposed to act a check on the executive branch in the states. Having the likes of Tony Blair being able to appoint who he wants is a frightening prospect, it's bad enough he sold peerages. I think I despise him even more than I despised Thatcher- I couldn't stand her but at least you could respect her.

I think the north of england and wales should break away with scotland and leave the south east to it's own devices.

[Accountable]

I hadn't thought of life membership, but new blood has to have a place at the table as well. The electorate always get what they deserve, meaning if the majority vote to keep mediocrity in place, then they deserve mediocrity.



A good balance might be to let the House run as it has run - The short terms keep them coming back to their respective states seeking approval - but change the Senate to a lifetime appointment by that state's governor, certainly not the President. If the governor was limited to filling only one position of the two, leaving the other one to be filled by subsequent governors, I think it might be a good check to keep the representation from being skewed too far toward one view.

[K.Snyder]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;981933 wrote: Wouldn’t American be better serviced by people who are more focused on doing the right thing, than doing what helps them get reelected?


One could argue that this ideology serves the people better than one knowing their job's not at stake...