Should term-limits be imposed on Politicians? (Question of the Day 9-13-10)

Aren't they called "elections"? 
I kid, I kid. But aside from that, no. Why get rid of someone just when they're getting good at the job if their policies are still popular and implemented effectively?

No, just keep the power limitted but let them be in office if their good at their jobs.

No, term limits are evil! All non-Parliamentary politicians should serve life terms! Long live the king!

Yes because otherwise W would have rigged yet another election and still be in office now. And of course being a Texan means my vote doesn't count either way.

I'm all for term limits. Most politicians that have been in the same office for more than 20 years tend to not give a fuck about anyone but themselves.

" Aren't they called "elections"? I kid, I kid. But aside from that, no. Why get rid of someone just when they're getting good at the job if their policies are still popular and implemented effectively? "

@MrKlorox

" Yes because otherwise W would have rigged yet another election and still be in office now. "

New ideas are never a bad thing. 
 
Not to mention the country raping power mongering, but that's a far less cheerful topic.

Yes, I am not a big fan of career politicians.

My dream is one where all governments are destroyed, and every city becomes independent, mountain bandits and pirates everywhere, and we don't know how to get around because we burned all the maps and destroyed the roads. Like Mount & Blade IRL, the world is too boring now a days

No, if you dont like someone being there for a long time, vote them out.... California, where I lived for a few years, has term limits on members of the legislator. I think they can serve a maximum of 2 terms, it leads to a broken system with members with no experience and freshmen assembly members being speaker.
 
If someone is doing a good job then it makes sense to keep them, if not, then get rid of them. Maybe its because I'm from the UK where we don't have term limits, as long as you maintain the confidence of Parliament (you hold a majority) you can stay on as Prime Minister. Thatcher was PM for about 11 years and Blair for about 10, they both won 3 general elections. Its mainly because we dont have clear terms, a term could last a matter of weeks or up to 5 years.  
 
Imagine if FDR was restricted by term limits...

" No, if you dont like someone being there for a long time, vote them out.... California, where I lived for a few years, has term limits on members of the legislator. I think they can serve a maximum of 2 terms, it leads to a broken system with members with no experience and freshmen assembly members being speaker. If someone is doing a good job then it makes sense to keep them, if not, then get rid of them. Maybe its because I'm from the UK where we don't have term limits, as long as you maintain the confidence of Parliament (you hold a majority) you can stay on as Prime Minister. Thatcher was PM for about 11 years and Blair for about 10, they both won 3 general elections. Its mainly because we dont have clear terms, a term could last a matter of weeks or up to 5 years.   Imagine if FDR was restricted by term limits... "

Yes to prevent people like Jesse "AIDS=sodomy" Helms from serving for an eternity. But no to prevent noob politicians from serving and to also keep the good ones in (Although longevity does not equal quality). There's a lot to consider, so maybe a compromise is in order.

" @CRAzYKiLL3R93 said:

" No, if you dont like someone being there for a long time, vote them out.... California, where I lived for a few years, has term limits on members of the legislator. I think they can serve a maximum of 2 terms, it leads to a broken system with members with no experience and freshmen assembly members being speaker. If someone is doing a good job then it makes sense to keep them, if not, then get rid of them. Maybe its because I'm from the UK where we don't have term limits, as long as you maintain the confidence of Parliament (you hold a majority) you can stay on as Prime Minister. Thatcher was PM for about 11 years and Blair for about 10, they both won 3 general elections. Its mainly because we dont have clear terms, a term could last a matter of weeks or up to 5 years.   Imagine if FDR was restricted by term limits... "

Wow. That is the best and clearest argument I've ever heard regarding term limits. I voted yes and have always thought it was a good idea, your response has me reconsidering . . . Although maybe cap it off a bit higher at like 4 terms total? And 2 terms for president as it already is in America. But having freshmen who don't have much experience like our current President is a strong argument against term limits. I still think that having them there forever is a bad idea though . . . But everyone is correct that they are voted in and stay there because they keep winning the elections.  "

Yes; being stuck with W or with O for over a decade sounds like Hell.

" Yes; being stuck with W or with O for over a decade sounds like Hell. "

It's not always obvious if a politician is effective at their job, and can you really say a politician deserves credit when the economy recovers or various good bad things happen that happen to correlate with their policiies ?? What if the politicians policies had nothing to do with economic recovery but it was actual individuals in the market ? There are multiple instances of voters assigning false positives, and extremely stupid ones to politicians, voters have historically associated shark attacks and natural disastors with current admins, this doesn't bold well for determining if a politician is doing good.
 
IF your approval methodology is going to assign stupendously obvious unrelated events to an administrations performance then screw it. 
 
This poll has no answer.
 
Anyway, mathematically democracy doesn't give you majority preference. It gives you a preference paradox that is intransitive, so you can never say definitively if societies preferences accord with the vote outcome, and that's even if everybody votes.

For the US:  It's important to keep in mind that personal wealth or celebrity aside, a junior legislator will raise less money for a reelection campaign than a senior legislator.   Thus, except in tumultuous times (such as the present), and elder statesman has a greater chance of being reelected given the exact same policies due to an election campaign.  When it comes to races aside from the presidency, national party money and national media coverage barely gets involved - candidates only get as much publicity as their name-recognition can pay for.  Then there's the primary system to account for, which increases the barrier to entry for politicians of the same party as the incumbent.  Say you like Democratic policies, but you think an up-and-comer can do them better.  Well yes, you can vote for him in the primary, but unseating an established incumbent in a primary election is very rare, and pragmatically, a bit illogical.  A senior legislator heads up committees and brings pork home.  He's also proven he can win in the general election.  You'd have to really hate him to be willing to give that up for someone new from the same party. 
 
So at the end of the day, yes, I think there should be term limits.  Let them stay long enough to get experience, but don't let them stay so long it becomes a career where they're more worried about keeping their jobs than making a name for themselves.  We want legislators who want to get things done, and getting things done is what will be most likely to help their career once their term in Congress is over.

" For the US:  It's important to keep in mind that personal wealth or celebrity aside, a junior legislator will raise less money for a reelection campaign than a senior legislator.   Thus, except in tumultuous times (such as the present), and elder statesman has a greater chance of being reelected given the exact same policies due to an election campaign.  When it comes to races aside from the presidency, national party money and national media coverage barely gets involved - candidates only get as much publicity as their name-recognition can pay for.  Then there's the primary system to account for, which increases the barrier to entry for politicians of the same party as the incumbent.  Say you like Democratic policies, but you think an up-and-comer can do them better.  Well yes, you can vote for him in the primary, but unseating an established incumbent in a primary election is very rare, and pragmatically, a bit illogical.  A senior legislator heads up committees and brings pork home.  He's also proven he can win in the general election.  You'd have to really hate him to be willing to give that up for someone new from the same party.  So at the end of the day, yes, I think there should be term limits.  Let them stay long enough to get experience, but don't let them stay so long it becomes a career where they're more worried about keeping their jobs than making a name for themselves.  We want legislators who want to get things done, and getting things done is what will be most likely to help their career once their term in Congress is over. "

I don't see why you would, that's what elections are for. If they are doing no good don't re-elect them.

The political parties get their money from membership fees, donations (Conservatives from companies and rich people, Labour from unions, idk about the liberals...) and state funding (only the opposition parties in parliament). While in the US, Representatives have to spend hundreds of thousands, without much party support, and end up relying on corporations, their own funds and the rich.  

Actually this notion of the liberal party not being supported by business elite is not convincing. 
 

Although board members from some sectors exhibit conservative allegiances—notably the oil, gas, and coal industries—most corporate boards are either dispersed across the ideological spectrum, or seem to have aligned with the left, as is the case of many of the growth stories of the new economy. 

This accords with the public choice view that businesses that posses market dominance can benefit not just from subsidies(republican corporate welfare) but oppressive and viscous regulatory environment that imposes massive costs on new entrants into the market(liberal). 
 
Minus Bill Clinton(not your typical liberal).. I will start giving him props for de-regulating more then Reagan.

 
@CRAzYKiLL3R93 said:

 While in the US, Representatives have to spend hundreds of thousands, without much party support, and end up relying on corporations, their own funds and the rich. That doesnt seem right, they end up representing special interests and not the public interest. 

 
And you should monitor them once they leave public service too. Make them report to Congress about what jobs they take for a few years afterwards to make sure they're not making any shady deals 

I didn't answer the poll because "yes" and "no" don't cover the gamut

No, term limits are pretty bad.  The best politician is one that *only* cares about getting elected.  Then, in theory, they should be only carry out policies the public wants.  This doesn't always work out.  However, failures at this point are caused by systemic problems (long campaign season, more campaign finance laws) that can easily be fixed.  If you have term limits, the time in office becomes like a paid vacation more than a job.

I'm against pretty much any limits on who can stand in elections. It should be up to the public to vote for whoever they want. If the public think that a person who has been in the job for X number of terms can still do the job properly, that's their decision. Similarly, if they feel he/she has been in the job for too long, they can vote them out. That's democracy at it's finest.

"

"

"@CRAzYKiLL3R93: Actually, all 3 parties draw on a fairly similar mix of rich individuals and small and large businesses to fund their campaigns, as well as membership fees and interestingly, borrowing. Labour's biggest donors are still the Unions overall but Lakshmi Mittal and Nigel Doughty both put £1 million each into the Labour campaign this year, with the largest individual Tory donor topping out at £803,000. "

Yes. Politics is all about inertia. The longer they stay in, the more complacent and cautious they get. If politicians knew they had a maximum of 12 years (2 senate terms or 6 congressional terms) then they would be forced to get off their ass and actually do something. 6 years could work as well, but then you run the risk of a great amount of knowledge and expertise loss, and the staffers would end up running the governmnent, even more than they do now. 
 
All in all, term limits are good ideas. We have them for the president, we should have them for legislators as well. Shame it would take a constitutional amendment to do it though.