Up until this month, I was dead set against term limits

[ThoughtCriminal]

I think this may be the first time I've flamed the Democratic Party here.
:rant:
Term limits: Hated, hated, hated the idea. Now I'm having 2nd thoughts. I viewed it as just another stupid broken promise from the GOP's "Contract on America" (How's that going?!). But I'm getting really pissed off at Democratic incumbents who are deeply entrenched and seem to have little interest in protect the Constitution and the future of our country.

The problem is, that that as hard as it is to un-seat an incumbent in the General Election, it is just about impossible to unseat them in the primary. How many are even contested in the Primary? It's a political suicide mission. We really need new progressive blood in Congress. I'm sure as heck not going to vote Republican and going 3rd Party is a gift to the GOP.

So, what do you folks think? Would term limits promote a more populist Congress, less loyal to Corporate influence, or more of the same? Worse?

[Gman]

1. The best form of term limits is the ballot box

if people are happy, that's their representative, as much as I sometimes feel like you do. But the ballot box does work. Witness Ciro Rodriguez unseating multi-term incumbent Henry Bonilla.

[ThoughtCriminal]

4. Yes, that's what I believed too

But it is not only very rare for an incumbent to lose a primary challenge they are seldom challenged at all. In 2/3 of the Congressional races in 2004, there was no challenger in the primary. We are not being given a choice at the ballot box until we have to choose between a Republican or a Democrat in the General Election.

There may be a way to test my hypothesis. That would be to look at the results from open seats (ie when an incumbent is retiring or has died). Is there a difference in those races? I'd be interested in seeing some data.

[Journeyman]

2. Term limits would only help if every elected official was subject to them. . .

As it is, if your state adopts term limits, and another state does not, that other state's politicians will hold a seniority advantage over your politicians the majority of the time. You'll elect fresh blood every two or three elections, while they'll send the same guy back year after year, allowing him to accrue both seniority and experience over your politicians, thus putting you at somewhat of a parliamentary disadvantage, no matter how capable your elected official may prove to be.

I believe an open, accountable ballot box, an enlightened, educated populace, and public financing of elections are a much better approach. It may not solve all the problems, but it won't compound the existing ones either. For after all, without term limits, Bill Clinton might still be President.

[illinoisprogressive]

3. we need the new ideas and new blood so badly. I am seriously thinking of it.

[NV Whino]

5. This is a catch 22 situation

You have to give them enough time to actually accomplish something, but limit their time so they don't get complacent. I would suggest longer terms, but limit the number.

Here in California we have term limits. The last election we lost a really good rep because her term expired. The good news is we got another really good representative. The other good news is, Arnold can't run again.

[polichick]

6. I absolutely believe in term limits!

This government is supposed to be of, by and for the people ~ not of, by and for professional fat-cat politicians. Citizens were meant to take some time away from their everyday careers to serve their country for a short time ~ we need to go back to that way of thinking.

[Robson]

7. Agreed

the longer they are in office, the more entrenched and corrupt they become...regardless of party. Our interests should be keeping the system honest, not keeping the individual officials in office. There is always another competent dedicated candidate to run for office. But in the case of entrenched incumbents there is rarely an opponent that can overcome their political advantage.