Ted Cruz proposes method of getting rid of Ted Cruz

[LaCroix]

I don't think garbon was being 100% serious re pelosi

[Valmy]

Don't senators spend like 40% of their time campaigning? Term limits might help that. Especially their last term so that they can concentrate on Senatoring (and or one last big corruption grab)

That is part of it.

Also I would prefer the system work like a Corsus Honorem type deal. Career politicians should be working up from local office, getting familiarized with how politics work and paying their dues. Reaching the Congress or Senate should be a culmination. Then they should either move up to the next level, to Senate if they were in Congress or Governor (or some other statewide office) or President or whatever. If they were undistinguished in the Congress then it might be time for them to move on to something else. For non-career people a few terms in the Congress should likewise come as a culmination of whatever they did to be considered a good candidate for national office. I think it will bring a greater diversity of experience and have them be better tied to their districts. I do not think ultimately the effect would be neophytes pouring in. That is created by an atmosphere of populist anti-establishment politics which will happen one way or another.

Likewise a big problem is sitting members have access to certain levers and privileges that help keep them in office. Having more open seats would help level the playing field a bit and give Congressional and Senatorial elections a more dynamic quality.

[Jacob]

I don't think garbon was being 100% serious re pelosi

[Razgovory]

Most of them remain know-nothing neophytes even after spending many terms in office. 

I think that is actually incorrect, and that the firm and widespread desire to believe that is one of the main things undermining the American republic.

Bingo.  People like to think that people who disagree with them are not only wrong, but stupid.

[grumbler]

I haven't seen any of the evidence that supports the argument that Senators and Congressmen get better at their jobs over time.  Seems to me like a begged question.

[jimmy olsen]

Most of them remain know-nothing neophytes even after spending many terms in office. 

I think that is actually incorrect, and that the firm and widespread desire to believe that is one of the main things undermining the American republic.

Agreed.

[Jacob]

I haven't seen any of the evidence that supports the argument that Senators and Congressmen get better at their jobs over time.  Seems to me like a begged question.

I guess it depends on how we define "get better at their jobs over time".

For my part I'm not asserting that they do get better at their jobs over time, merely that they get more experience. Absent evidence to the contrary in any given case I'd assume that experience in any given role is a net positive. It's certainly possible that in the case of senators and congressmen it's not, but I default to thinking that it is since that holds true in most areas I'm familiar with... and because I'm a relentless optimist

[DGuller]

Yes, who needs people like John McCain in the Senate?

[DGuller]

Jaded pessimism is not realism. The reason there are good things and institutions in the US is because optimists and idealists and pragmatists have worked hard for them. People repeating to themselves and others that "things are shit" facilitate things becoming even more shit.

Very well said.  Mindless cynicism is poison to democracy, and surely played a significant role in having us get to where we are today.

[Razgovory]

I haven't seen any of the evidence that supports the argument that Senators and Congressmen get better at their jobs over time.  Seems to me like a begged question.

This post is something of an anomaly.  None else has said, "Senators or Congressmen get batter at their jobs over time" but you Grumbler. So the Begged question is the one you made up.

[Valmy]

Yes, who needs people like John McCain in the Senate?

Since 1927 that seat has been occupied by three people. Amazing.

[CountDeMoney]

Likewise a big problem is sitting members have access to certain levers and privileges that help keep them in office. Having more open seats would help level the playing field a bit and give Congressional and Senatorial elections a more dynamic quality.

Term limits increase the total number of Congressmen walking the earth over time.  The more ex-Congressmen there are, the more lobbyists there will be.

I'm not sure exactly what the mathematical growth rate formula is for that, but I'm pretty sure it's something like This = Cannot Be Good

[Berkut]

I haven't seen any of the evidence that supports the argument that Senators and Congressmen get better at their jobs over time.  Seems to me like a begged question.

I guess it depends on how we define "get better at their jobs over time".

For my part I'm not asserting that they do get better at their jobs over time, merely that they get more experience. Absent evidence to the contrary in any given case I'd assume that experience in any given role is a net positive. It's certainly possible that in the case of senators and congressmen it's not, but I default to thinking that it is since that holds true in most areas I'm familiar with... and because I'm a relentless optimist

I think they certainly get "better" at their jobs, but a big part of what they are getting better at isn't what is actually serving their constituency, it is getting better at securing their position and getting re-elected. Forever. And ever. And ever.

The problem is that there is a lack of alignment in what they are doing and what they ought to be doing. This isn't their fault per se, but it is a failure in the system.

I don't know that term limits are the answer - to me that is kind of a band-aid solution that "solves" the problem in a rather blunt manner, and I suspect may not even solve the problem at the end of the day.

I actually do support term limits for Congress. I don't know that three and two are the right numbers, but I know that "forever" is almost certainly the wrong number.

[grumbler]

I think they certainly get "better" at their jobs, but a big part of what they are getting better at isn't what is actually serving their constituency, it is getting better at securing their position and getting re-elected. Forever. And ever. And ever.

The problem is that there is a lack of alignment in what they are doing and what they ought to be doing. This isn't their fault per se, but it is a failure in the system.

I don't know that term limits are the answer - to me that is kind of a band-aid solution that "solves" the problem in a rather blunt manner, and I suspect may not even solve the problem at the end of the day.

I actually do support term limits for Congress. I don't know that three and two are the right numbers, but I know that "forever" is almost certainly the wrong number.

Agree, and that was kinda my point.  Opponents of term limits argue that they are "not asserting that they do get better at their jobs over time," just that "they get more experience [and]... assume that experience in any given role is a net positive."  Which is to say that they don't want to admit that they are arguing that Congressmen get better in their jobs over time, but they are in fact arguing exactly that as the sole basis for opposing term limits.

I am with you in believing that term limits may not be the solution, but that they are a step towards a solution.  The proper limits might not be three terms and two terms, but, as you say, it is likelier three and two than "unlimited."

Part of the reason i believe this is that it will make it much less worthwhile to spend all the money currently being spent on campaigns, because the people buying the congressmen are not buying them for such a long period of time.  Paying millions to by a congressman who is going to be out of office in six years is a much less attractive prospect than buying one who, once bought, will be in office until he dies (or is close to death).

Another part of my reason is that it means that Congressmen will have to think about life after office.  As Seedy points out, today there is only a limited supply of ex-congressmen, so they can command pretty high prices as consultants and figureheads - a disincentive to rock any boats when in office.  If there are so many that you cannot swing a cat without hitting a former congressmen, they will revert to being mere mortals, and won't be as incentivised to sacrifice their constituents' interests to serve their own.  They may even have to move out of Washington! 

Term limits work for the presidency.  They can work for the House, Senate, and Supreme Court, too.

[The Brain]

Yes, who needs people like John McCain in the Senate?

Since 1927 that seat has been occupied by three people. Amazing.

Is that even legal?