comment: >
  
  
  new members are cheaper to buy and also it is an awesome way to get rid of any politicians you cannot buy.
  
  Politicians are being bought for millions already anyways, making them cheaper won't change anything. If someone is going to sell put they are probably going to sell out regardless. It is also a goof way to get rid of politicians that keep the status quo for their own interests too so you can't really use that as an argument.
  
  It is a sad way to pretend they are addressing corruption while not actually addressing corruption
  
  So doing nothing to address corruption now is in some way better?
context: No. And thank god it doesn't. That would be absolutely horrible for the future of the nation. >
  
  Happy to see so many people in the comments rejecting the idea, but not much of an explanation why they're bad, so here goes:
  Term limits are sort of in that area of "right diagnosis, wrong prescription." People point out that Congress is very dysfunctional, doesn't seem to do a good job of representing its constituents, and it's very hard to unseat an incumbent.
  Term limits don't improve the effectiveness of Congress, and it only makes it easier to unseat incumbents by barring them from running -- not by making elections more fair and competitive.
  The main effect of term limits on legislatures (and we know because states have tried this and looked at the results) is to just shift power around. Individual legislators have less power because they have less experience, fewer connections, etc. So, what ends up happening is the executive branch gets more power, and lobbyists, party leaders, bureaucrats, and lots of other unelected people get more influence.
  [This is the part where people say "Well, we'll have other reforms, like banning lobbying" -- and then any follow-up questions reveal they have no idea what lobbying is and are using it purely as a synonym for corruption.]
  A far better approach to getting at what people want is to provide campaign vouchers, a program where everyone is given something like $50-200 that can only be used by donating it to a political campaign. That would go a long ways towards evening the playing field between challengers and incumbents, while at the end of the day not restricting anyone's speech and not telling anyone who they can and cannot vote for. >
  
  Term limits are useless if not harmful.
  People staying in office a long time is not necessarily a bad thing, and in no way is the source of our current problems in politics. In fact, the newer members tend to be even more extreme than the more establishment types. >
  
  To play devils advocate to your position, could one not argue that people not staying in office a long time is also a good thing? There are definitely lawmakers that have made a lot of connections within government over the decades they have been in power that have been exploited, insider trading is an example. Of course that could still happen regardless but it couldn't happen for decades if there was a term limit. 
  Newer members tend to be more extreme 100%, but the establishment members are usually pretty out of touch with the electorate. The longer they are in power, usually the worse it gets.
  There are definitely pros and cons to each argument but I believe that an age limit on lawmakers would be far more effective than a term limit. >
  
  No one cannot make that argument.. new members are cheaper to buy and also it is an awesome way to get rid of any politicians you cannot buy.
  It sounds good while meaning nothing..
  It is a sad way to pretend they are addressing corruption while not actually addressing corruption