Will term limits make the voters any smarter?

Term limits are a good idea, but the ultimate answer, imo, is campaign reform. Look at what's happened since the Supreme Court decided that money equals free speech. Politics has become all about raising money, with governance becoming an irritant that keeps legislators from their vacations and eternal fundraising.

However, if there's a true bipartisan movement in Congress, it's in seeking the bucks. If public campaign financing was ever brought to the table, we'd soon 'learn' from Congress and the media how campaign reform is really a Socialist/Communist/Nazi plot.

Term limits have been tried and don't work. Banning TV and radio ads has never been tried, (though Supreme Court rulings are a cop-out: there are surely ways short of amending the Constitution -which need not be off the table either- to stop making the choice of government leaders like the choice of detergent or personal hygiene products).

None of this, however, explains why Congressional Democrats tend to be much more spineless than Congressional Republicans, and Republicans more recklessly and deliberately ignorant than Democrats. Why should money and entrenched incumbency make one party cowardly and the other stupid?

Things are so screwed up, I'd be willing to try something more radical, such as making some decisions by direct democracy on-line.

Term limits have been a disaster in California. I think it's 3 terms in the Assembly (6 years) and 2 in the Senate (8 years). All it has meant is constant turnover, no one develops expertise so legislators are more reliant than ever on lobbyists, constant jockeying for the next office etc. An unmitigated disaster. It would have to be longer, something more like a 20-year limit (5 House terms of 3 Senate or some combination thereof).

Better to have more competitive districts through fairer (non-partisan) apportionment and some form of public financing for challengers. But legislators aren't about to vote for either.

Are term limits the answer?

Of course Not !!

West Virginia:

Sen. Robert Byrd - 53 years

Sen. Jay Rockefeller - 25 years

Cong. Alan Mollohan - 26 years
(his dad before that for about 25 years)

Cong. Nick Joe Rahall - 33 years

Maybe we need party limits. Maybe after so long they just become unable to respresent the public. I can't understand as unhappy as people are with the government why there isn't more interest in real reform not faux campaign spin reform.

But it seems to be pervasive outside of government as well. There just don't seem to be any courageous leaders in business, the press, the church... where are they? I don't care if you are left, right or center you have to wonder about the future.

Term limits only shifts power to the executive, in a country that is already an elective autocracy. The fault falls to the voters. I know this is not the accepted view, but it is so. If those who favor a massive reform agenda scare the bejezus out of their elective representatives, a massive reform agenda will happen. To make that happen, we need to raise more independent money and to follow through every two years with credible primary challenges against 50 disappointing Democratic members and 10 disappointing Democratic Senators.

Congressional term limits is a great idea. Where do I sign?

That's a nice description of the problem with members of Congress, but the Blue Dogs are not opposing "Obama's plan". They love it.

The president made a secret deal with lobbyists to kill off a single-payer system, and water down a public option that may not even pass. There won't be universal health care or real reform, and instead private insurers will receive massive amounts of taxpayer money.

Special interests buying candidates from both parties in all elections is the problem, and term limits won't help. After all, the presidency is term-limited, and yet Obama is as much of a sell-out as the average senator.

Here's another problem with term limits. In the California Assembly 1/3 of all members are facing their limit at any time. Basically they are there looking for their next job. The incentive to do a favor for a potential future employer is just too great. In addition, here in California, it has shifted power to the professional staff, the only people with historical memory.

The author writes as if Obama actually had a policy that he had proposed that the Democrats in Congress are refusing to pass. When did I miss this? I don't remember seeing an Obama plan being proposed. He's merely leaving it up to Congress to come up with something, no? Perhaps this is his madly cunning plan: to claim that he came up with a plan. In the mean time, his plan is to have to plan and thus to pass nothing. This will set back any future attempts to reform this health-care mess at least another generation, which makes the plan a brilliant one for those who favor the status quo. Ah, now we're getting to the crux of the plan as it really is.

I'm just looking through the comments here and a lot of great points have been made. Some of this rehashes what others have said, so I'm not ripping your arguments just agreeing (or disagreeing) with them.

First, term limits could allow legislators to vote their conscience on issues rather than voting their re-election changes. But that assumes that all legislators are virtuous. Term limits would also allow legislators to vote for bad legislation because they have nothing to lose.

Second, if Congress currently incentivizes using the office as a stepping-stone to the private sector, imagine the attraction with limited accountability by the electorate.

Third, I would assume that Congressional term limits would require a Constitutional amendment. That's kind of ball game right there.

For these reasons only I find term limits a nonstarter. There are valid reasons both for and against with no evidence that term limits would work better in our current model.

The real issue, imo, is money. You have to raise money to get elected and most of this money comes from special interests. If you buck these interests once in office, the re-election money dries up. If you play ball, you can get enough money to almost ensure re-election.

So, if you play ball, especially in the Senate, you get a likely solid twelve years (at least) in a good job with excellent pay and benefits as well as a virtually guaranteed spot in the private sector should voter mood or a guy with more money cut your career short.

All that said, public financing of elections, abolishing PAC and special interest donations, and ending (or limiting) the book deals, lecture tours, and private sector cush jobs once out of office would be a better fix in my opinion.

The downside to this is that we may lose some very qualified people who may do good things in office but also want to secure a certain lifestyle while doing so. The upside would be that we get people who care more about public service than big bucks and corporate interest.

This would make government accountable only to the people who would then have the power to term limit their asses at the ballot box.

We need campaign finance reform so that bagmen like Rahm Emmanuel and the kleptocrats he fronts for don't drive this country into bankruptcy and developing world status.

This makes no sense.

Incumbents are too concerned with getting voted out of office, so we should... convince them to vote themselves out of office with a term-limits bill. LOL!

What is this, the Onion?

If term limits are such a good idea, then what about similar limits on Supreme Court Justices? Lifetime appointments simply don't make sense, even for the sensible ones.

There have been some great comments here. While I like the idea of term limits, I can appreciate the problems with them and I would be more inclined for 12 year limits. I support campaign finance reform and think that would help. What I really want to know is where is Bwakfat and her pitchforks? Term limits, campaign finance reform, or pitchforks?

Either term limits or a controversial proposal I have made in the past. Raise their pay to $1M - $2M per year and strictly forbid any politician, their party or agents, from taking one additional penny in the course of doing their job. It would limit the influence of corporate money and also maybe attract a better class of people into public service. Why would a person spend millions of dollars to get elected to a position that pays about $300K - $400K per year unless they were planning to recoup all that money spent ten fold?