comment: >
  
  We don't need term limits, and Americans should be able to elect, or re-elect anyone they want as long as the person is capable of doing the job they're elected for. Term limits were really only created to stop Roosevelt from being President for Life, in the beginning. But frankly, if that's what Americans want, that's what we should get.
  What we need is a more robust and competitive election process. The reason term limits for Congress seem like a good idea is because have Senators like Mitch McConnell, who basically runs unopposed in every election and is, therefore, the only real option for Kentuckians to elect. Since 1985, McConnell has won despite being a pretty unpopular Senator, even in his own state. That needs to stop.
  And the best way to stop it is to shift to Ranked Choice Voting, which expands the pool of candidates and does a host of other good things for Americans. Not so great for politicians. 
  If we reform elections, we won't need term limits.
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. >
  
  ALEC is a main influencer among term limited positions..