comment: >
  
  It does, as that is who the constituents  primaried then voted for in the general
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.. >
  
  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. >
  
  
  But frankly, if that's what Americans want, that's what we should get.
  
  If 3/4s of Americans want it, we should get it. Qualifications for Congress are set by the Constitution.
  We're talking about one set of people telling another set of people they can't vote for their preferred candidate. That shouldn't be a simple 'majority wins' scenario. >
  
  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 >
  
  
  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? >
  
  So what,let them be bought for thousands instead lol your just making them cheaper. 
  It does nothing to stop status quo politicians lol nothing. Voting against status quo politicians does that...
  As far as addressing corruption you have more oversight obviously...
  You could pay more and  stop allowing gifts, ban stock trading and lobbying..  you know things that actually address corruption?!?!
  Establishment talking heads are feeding you a fake fix specifically to make them easier to be bought and sold when real fixes are very obvious. 
  Especially if your a conservative, they by definition want to conserve the status quo and support the very same wealthy donors who are paying them off.
  The dictionary definition of Conservative/right-wing is supports the establishment or wants to return toba past Era of perceived greatness. 
  Liberal/left means you want broad scale new change.
  The particulars change depending on where you are. 
  In Russia the right-wing wants communism because communism is the establishment in Russia and the capitalists are the libs >
  
  Holy there's a lot to unpack here.
  
  So what,let them be bought for thousands instead lol your just making them cheaper
  
  You're acting as if money is a problem for the rich lobbyists. The amount isn't really relevant, even if a senator was caught saying "well I won't do it for 100 grand but I'll do it for a million" they would be put in jail. The solution to this kind of stuff is having every single asset the lawmaker owns recorded and every single penny they spend and gain to be audited. Same with their family too so you don't get a Pelosi situation. The amount that someone "can be bought for" doesn't make the corruption any less or more worse. 
  
  It does nothing to stop status quo politicians lol nothing. Voting against status quo politicians does that...
  
  It gets rid of the politicians that have been in power for decades, so yeah it kinda does change the status quo. How has voting against the status quo politicians been working lately? 
  
  As far as addressing corruption you have more oversight obviously...
  
  It's called political discussion, we are having a discussion, never claimed to have all the insight into the situation.
  
  You could pay more and stop allowing gifts, ban stock trading and lobbying.. you know things that actually address corruption?!?!
  
  You know they make over 170 grand a year right? That's a far better salary a hefty majority of citizens. And all those things except lobbying are already illegal, they just found loopholes around them but they chose not to close them for obvious reasons. They need to close the loopholes and enforce those laws. Not pay them more.
  
  Establishment talking heads are feeding you a fake fix specifically to make them easier to be bought and sold when real fixes are very obvious.
  
  I never said it would be a fix either. I'm more saying that there are pros and cons to each argument. You need to chill bro, I can tell by your wording you are getting heated by this discussion.
  
  Especially if your a conservative, they by definition want to conserve the status quo and support the very same wealthy donors who are paying them off.
  
  That's a pretty narrow view of what a conservative is. Also liberals in power are maintaing the status quo also, this isn't a left wing or right wing issue, the issue is that both of those wings are on the same bird and they know how to get what they want and keeping the status quo is in their interest.
  
  The dictionary definition of Conservative/right-wing is supports the establishment or wants to return toba past Era of perceived greatness. 
  
  No it's not. no where does it say "return to a past Era of perceived greatness". I think what you mean is a resistance to change. But in this case liberals in power are guilty of this too.
  
  Liberal/left means you want broad scale new change.
  
  Kinda not really, more like fast change.
  
  In Russia the right-wing wants communism because communism is the establishment in Russia and the capitalists are the libs
  
  Not sure how this is relevant. >
  
  A) 170 gs a year is better than the median, but it is not enough where it is too good of a job to risk losing, and a congressman or senator is not median job. It is a very exceptional job.
  B) that is why I sad ban stock trading lobbying, etc...because then there is no loop hole. Then any mysterious money that shows up is considered corruption.  That is also why you pay more because you ate not allowing other forms of income.
  C) that is 100% the dictionary definition of conservative.. they are calling you stupid by pretending they are not the establishment when that is literally the definition of conservative.
  Supports the military, police, big businessness, church aka the establishment institutions.
  It is literally hilarious the way they pretend they are the outsiders. 
  From the Merriam Webster Dictionary 
  Conservative: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL
  What is and is not conservative changes based on where you are talking about.. >
  
  Term limits are another really dumb idea, especially in a congress where every single seat is up for election every other year. If people don’t want to see somebody hold the seat for decades, they can very easily vote them out. There’s a reason inexperienced legislators aren’t given real power in congress while they learn and the senior legislators lead committees/caucuses. 
  Luckily it doesn’t appear there are the votes for this to come close to passing. >
  
  You say it’s easy to vote them out but that’s not how politics works. The long-term incumbents have typically consolidated local party power to ensure they don’t face a challenge and if they do face a challenge, they are typically much better resourced. In the US, money tends to translate into winning. 
  The experience thing bugs me. As I said somewhere above, in no other job would we suggest someone with two years of experience is not experienced enough to train for leadership or be in leadership roles. I’d argue the idea that people need to be in Congress 10+ years before they’re effective is largely due to the fact that power is so concentrated in the long-timers that nothing can be done without their support or in a way they don’t personally endorse. 
  It seems like people support a situation in Congress they regularly complain about in their old workplaces. Experience is useful, but these aren’t entry-level roles - congresspeople should be capable of fulfilling their full scope of roles, with the support of a robust professional staff, without having to put in a decade of waiting in the wings. 
  If congresspeople can’t be effective in 10-12 years, shut it down. >
  
  
  In the US, money tends to translate into winning.
  
  That should be the real focus of change, not imposing term limits. >
  
  Precisely.  If corruption and representation are your concerns, find better solutions than removing choice from voters.  Term limits don't address the real problems the advocates identify.  So move to better targeted solutions. >
  
  Term limits are a sad deflection that does absolutely nothing to help corruption,  but instead makes corruption more likely..
  Is it cheaper to pay off a 2 therm senator or a 6 ter. Senator??
  What happens if there is a senator that cannot be bought??  Just wait until their limit expires and the next one might can be bought.
  It is something that sounds good while meaning absolutely nothing. >
  
  It's not just that it's "cheaper," but it's also exponentially easier because term limits incentivize people to maximize their time for their own personal benefit. This means if a Congressperson wants to work at company X after they're term-limited, they'll prioritize that company and their own personal well-being over anyone else.
  It can be argued that this already exists today to an extent, but this would incentivize the entire Congress to act this way all the time. Congress will be even more for sale than it already is. >
  
  For show. I think term limits are just a distraction. >
  
  I honestly never understood the case for term limits. I know it’s popular with a lot of populist types, but what is it actually going to do? >
  
  I have never heard an answer thar wasn't ageism "get old people out of office" >
  
  There's nothing wrong with wanting representation to reflect the represented.