Term Limitations: A Good Conversion Tool!!

[priest_of_syrinx]

This morning, my mom and I were discussing the Patriot Act and I told her that it's a crock and that she should read it to see how ridiculous it is. It eventually got to how to make our country better and she said "Ron Paul may be able to do some great things, but congress won't allow it. Maybe if he supported term limitations, I would vote for him."

This made me remember the contest where you can submit a video question to the CNN debate. I said, "That would be a great question!" I recorded it, and kept failing to import it correctly to the computer and I said, "I have an idea: let's just look it up."

Turns out that Dr. Paul himself introduced term limit legislation! She said "Wow! That's the issue that almost made me leave the Republican party back in the 80's when they ran on it and didn't do it. I think I might vote for him now."

I THINK I DID IT!!!

So try mentioning to them how nothing will change if we don't get all these legislators sucking pork out of the federal budget by getting re-elected time after time for what they've done only for the state, and not for the nation. Mention that Ron Paul was the one who came up with this!

She says that she'll vote for him in the primaries "just for the heck of it" but she doesn't think he'll make the general election. Well, we're one voter closer now!!

[specsaregood]

Not everybody is convinced that "term limits" is a good idea. In fact, I have come across a few that were surprised Ron Paul supported them and thought that given time, theycould convince him that it is a bad idea.

Example:
"Term Limits Temptation"
http://www.jbs.org/node/498

Excerpt:
Throw the bums out! The idea is appealing to Americans who see their elected officials becoming less and less in touch with conservative government. The idea is also not new. Concerning term limits, which were considered by the Founding Fathers during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, No. 72: "Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection."

The quick-fix nature of term limitation is superficially appealing not only because of the perceived speed with which it appears to remove an offending official, but also because it does not require much thought, research, or analysis on the part of the voters. By throwing everyone out of office after a fixed number of terms, we rid ourselves of the task of deciding who is doing a good job and who is not. The finest and the worst are discarded by the calendar.

What those who are attracted by the concept of term limits generally fail to understand is that the promoters seek, not specific term limits, but general term limits, which would restrict the voter franchise and emasculate the power of the ballot. The goal -- ridding our government of the bad while keeping the top performers -- would be sacrificed on the altar of expediency.

[RonPaulForLife]

Do we have an answer to why he supported term limits then served 10 terms?

BTW, I'm personally leaning towards the anti-term-limits side. Let's remember that Ron Paul would have had to leave Congress in the 80's if we had term limits.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Do we have an answer to why he supported term limits then served 10 terms?

Well, he only served three full terms in the 70s/80s, and six in the 90s/00s after a ten year break. Most term limit proposals I've seen are for six total, or 12 years.

Anyway, I favor term limits for the executive branch (and probably even the judicial branch), but I think redistricting reform is the better way to solve the problem of not being able to throw the bums out of legislative office.

[RonPaulForLife]

Well, he only served three full terms in the 70s/80s, and six in the 90s/00s after a ten year break. Most term limit proposals I've seen are for six total, or 12 years.
As far as I know, all term limit proposals limit lifetime terms, not merely consecutive terms. At any rate, he said he's running for a 7th consecutive term.

[phoobaar]

Example:
"Term Limits Temptation"
http://www.jbs.org/node/498

Here's another libertarian minority argument against term limits: http://lewrockwell.com/block/block17.html

Frankly, I couldn't believe what I was reading there. Block essentially argues in favor of monarchy. And here I was under the impression that America was founded specifically to escape monarchy.

I'm not sure where I fall on this. I want to make up my mind, but I can't. Both sides make sound arguments.

[FreedomFighter1776]

My opposition to term limits comes down to a simple premise.

Term limits would limit my ability to vote for the candidate that I thought was best qualified.

To put it another way, term limits would undermine everyone's rights. As much as it may be beneficial to flush out the system now and again, we should not do so by limiting our rights. There are many other ways of limiting the power of those in office, limiting our power to elect who we choose should not be considered an option.

[phoobaar]

My opposition to term limits comes down to a simple premise.

Term limits would limit my ability to vote for the candidate that I thought was best qualified.

To put it another way, term limits would undermine everyone's rights. As much as it may be beneficial to flush out the system now and again, we should not do so by limiting our rights. There are many other ways of limiting the power of those in office, limiting our power to elect who we choose should not be considered an option.

Yep, that's one of those sound arguments I was talking about. The other side makes a few, too.

So, if given the opportunity to extend the number of terms that could be served (as opposed to just voting NO on a proposal to limit terms), I take it you would support that as well? If so, is there a ceiling on the number of terms before you would feel uncomfortable, or would you support an infinite number of terms (lifetime)?

[theseus51]

I had a totally radical way of redesigning representation. The president and the US Senate are still elected in the same way. But the house is by random drawing (like jury duty) and everyone only gets a single two year term. That would cut out a lot of corruption, make one body truly, honestly representative of the country (rather than mostly rich, white males, 50-70, who are businessmen or lawyers). I mean how much worse could it be? =)

[Zarxrax]

I think term limits are an attempt to solve a problem without getting at the root cause of the problem. The root problem is that we have a ton of people in congress who do not do what is in the best interest of their constituents, or the constitution. Why do these people keep getting reelected?

Well, I think name recognition is a big issue, and campaign finance is another. When someone is already in office, a lot of people know their name. So when it comes time to reelect, you have one person on the ballot who everyone knows, and then you have someone else that people have never heard of. Being a public official, you also get tons of opportunities to appear in newspaper articles and interviews on various subjects, giving you lots of opportunities to try and appeal to the voters. Someone running against you doesn't have all of those same opportunities. An incumbent also has much better fund raising ability.

When it comes down to it, the deck is seriously stacked in the favor of the incumbent. In order to get him voted out, he has to REALLY piss a large portion of his voters off.

[Zarxrax]

I had a totally radical way of redesigning representation. The president and the US Senate are still elected in the same way. But the house is by random drawing (like jury duty) and everyone only gets a single two year term. That would cut out a lot of corruption, make one body truly, honestly representative of the country (rather than mostly rich, white males, 50-70, who are businessmen or lawyers). I mean how much worse could it be? =)

I think they actually used to do that in ancient greece or rome or something.