Do you support term limits for the U.S. Congress? 


Should these lawmakers serve just a set amount of years and then move on? Would this reduce corruption? Would this help keep our lawmakers in touch with the people? 


Or do you think that we already have term limits in the form of something called the voting booth? 


Do you think that term limits would hurt third parties more than it would the two major parties if third party candidates start getting elected to Congress as it is easier for the two major parties to generate new candidates?


Let us know your thoughts on term limits......


Related:  Join the Term Limits Group

Views: 737

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes I support "Term Limits". Makes it easier to "nip it in the bud", so to speak.

It could serve corruption in the sense that it would establish more political types in their ranks. But in the sense of representatives, (which I am against, as is, in the first place), having time to "cultivate" corruptive connections, if they only serve one year, I don't know.

The People need to learn to use that "voting booth" and develop their power as the makers of Our Laws.

Third Parties should be about the majority of The People, but some of them are not.

It may be easier for the two party system to "generate" new candidates right now. But We have the potential to surpass this by leaps and bounds...actually maybe coming up with too many choices. Look at the long list We have compiled in Our "Polls" section so far. Its up to Us as We The People.

God I wish WE would wake up, in a positive intelligent constructive way! We need to become More. But I think We are doing this gradually aren't We?

Term limits would force those not running for reelection to do something other than campeign...hopefully the something they would do would be their job.

I think term limits are could be helpful. It seems that most of the people in Washington are just working enough to hold their place. Maybe if they knew they had a time limit they could get someting done for a change.  The only problem that I see is the voters, the ones that only vote with their emotions and not their minds. Allowing TV and mudd slinging to decide who will get their vote. The same type of person will still end up in office just under another name.


I think term limits are important because of the wealth driven nature of elections. Advertisements cost money, and incumbents hold a drastic advantage in that area. In addition, I don't believe lawmakers should receive a pension after 5 years of service (less than one full term for a senator)

Yeah. That's another matter that seems wrong to me. I wish We The People could learn to know these status quo two party ads for what they are and just ignore them. I do for the most part. Though sometimes I check out the art work in them.

Seek out the messages of the Independent and Third Party candidates.

1) Elections don't work. Not in the way you are suggesting, anyway. Until private financing of elections is removed, the incumbent will always have a tremendous advantage. I don't think anybody is suggesting a limit of one term, but people that have been in office 40 years? That's a bit much.

2) Two points - Elections occur in cycles (except for the house) so rookies are unlikely to head up major committees, as there will always be experienced senators present. Secondly, I would argue that it is the rookies who are less susceptible to lobbyists, as they still have the ideals that drove them to politics in the first place. People who have been in office a long time are there for the money and the power, both of which lobbyists provide.

3) This will always be a problem, but term limits will provide more opportunities for third party candidates to be competitive.

4) Experience in politics is overrated. People get very set in their ways and are unwilling to change. People who are new to Washington will be more likely to be open to new ideas.

5) Historically, judging from presidents, politicians do more if they know it is their last term in office. They have no worries about whether a vote will hurt their chances of getting reelected and will actually do things rather than "kicking the can down the road" as they have been doing recently.

There are some good considerations on both sides of this issue here. I am glad to see this being done.

I'm thinking that, (if We do have politician representatives and not Direct Democracy), then maybe We could institute a selective system that would respond to the performance of the Office Holder to determine whether or not they should have another term or not. Maybe all beginning office holders would start under a two year term limit. Then if they met certain wide spectrum performance standards, they could earn another term in office...should they be re-elected.

But maybe this wouldn't be necessary if the voters would only do their job as True Citizens Of America. Trouble is that We The People are a very diverse bunch that can only agree to cooperate if We feel threatened by an aggressor nation from outside. Usually We tend to pick a mindset and stick to that no matter what. The mindset becomes an emotionset and habit. Reason is sacrificed to one sided viewpoint. Adversity becomes the norm. America diminishes in its internal struggles.

Experience? The kind of experience that I see at work now in Washington D.C., is the kind that accompanies political corruption...self serving, deceptive and sometimes ruthless. It is poor medium for helping America become More and Better. It is toxic to altruistic minded new comers that might really care about Our Nation. A nation not dominated for and by the few, but more widely and fairly by The Many. It has been corrupted by big money interests and world domination interests,who are having their way about who gets elected. This state looks just fine to the 1% good ol boys who have profited mightily from their exploitation of it. It only begins to look sick to those who have not. And this perception decreases or increases according to just how well one has done in their lives as American Capitalist Citizens.  Not all personalities are suited to this. Isn't America supposed to be a "Melting Pot Nation"? Does this mean Capitalism only? Everything being done for profit? That sole consideration just doesn't seem like enough to me. It fails to include other social contract virtues that should be part of the American Equation. A lot of the problem lies in the Human weakness of going too far along a chosen path.

It all boils down to the character of Individuals. And Our ability to see them for who and what they really are. We The People need to work harder at scrutinizing those of Us who run for office. A lot of Our job might be made easier if We made Office Holding, at all levels, a volunteer calling.  But, if this is to work, We should also outlaw professional lobbying. Isolating the office holders might help too, but they would have to assume office with clearly stated mandates from We The People.

One final thing We might try. Reduce Representatives to "Advisory Status Only", while a 75%, or more, majority of We The People, as Truly Responsible Citizens, make the final decisions about the operation of Our Government and the establishment of Our Laws.

Of course this is an Ideal that is very beyond the capabilities of Our Present State. I am reduced to welcoming any change for the step at a time.  I think term limits is one of those steps simply because of what is entrenched in government now.

Term limits?  Yes, definitely.  It seems to be the only way to send the power addicted, uncompromising politicians packing.  These are the ones who blindly follow the party line and lack the guts to do the right thing for the citizenry.

I agree. Term limits would losen the grid lock caused by power being entrenched in a handful of oeople at the top.

Its good to see your replies Robert and Mari. Indication that "Citizens Party" still has a heartbeat.

I wonder what the ratio of politicians, either as "new candidates" or as "office holders", is for corporate corruption influence? What I mean is, What proportion of "new candidates" are already "corrupted" by influx of corporate wealth, in various forms, and, by comparison, what proportion of the already elected office holders are?

I guess i am asking how many new political candidates are influenced, (in secret deals), by corporate interests, before they start their campaigns.

I know. This is stupid questions, because the "secrecy" of the deals keeps Us from finding the Truth out about this. Though "back ground checks" of politicians, with an eye to discovering corporate business world connections, might help with this.

Unless...what if a new candidate reverses his, or her, commitment to the secret deal? And "blows the whistle"? But this still would not give Us the complete answer, as to proportion of politicians corrupted.

Hmmm. I wonder if a "Citizen Honesty Reward" for revealing these Truths, say double the amount offered by the corporations, would increase the "whistle blowing"?

I've got a suspicion that the "corruption" is well developed or "ground worked" long before politicians get into office. I'm not sure how "shorter terms" will effect this. I suppose, this might increase the expense to the corporation through a higher turn over rate...therefore being a little more helpful toward the solution of this problem.

Shorter term times are only the first warning and jab. We The People need to develop the ability and use such further actions, such as:

(1) Monitoring the legislative voting record of the politician and making this record well known to "We The People".

(2) Practicing Our Recall and Impeachment Options on politicians that reveal, by their voting, that they are not serving the "best interests" of "The Majority" of Us.

Everything I put in quotation marks needs to be carefully defined and agreed upon by "The Majority Of Us".

Sigh. We probably just need to start over again from "scratch".

I love the idea of a citizen reward.  One of the problems I see is that politicians don't really have to be secretive about being corrupt.  A lot of the practices most people would consider corrupt are campaign contributions, pork, award of gov't contracts to insiders, etc.

I, for one, appreciate your above comment, Hunter Wayne Crow.

I assume that when you say "all government positions...", you mean the elected positions.

I agree that term limits is one "tool" that would give We The People the opportunity to "weed out" corrupt politicians. Two other tools, for this purpose, might be a dedicated and moral Watch Dog Organization, that constantly (all day, every day) and consistently watches over the shoulders of Our Elected Representatives (at all elected governance levels - community, county, state and nation) and some level of Sequestration...that would help Us keep certain special interests from bribing Our Representatives in backrooms and bathrooms.

There are a few internet and activist organizations that just might consider the initial undertaking of these new duties...but they would have to be augmented and supported by Dedicated American Citizens.

I wonder if some idea about term limits is on the "Citizen Party Platform" yet? I'll go see.

Anyway, I sure Hope that this fine Citizen Party idea and web site, will "catch on" with the American People and realize its great potential. It has shown some endurance so far...hence my Hope.




© 2020   Created by Citizens Party   Powered by

Citizens Party Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

About your image
Join our CircleFollow Us On TwitterJoin our CircleVisit Us On FacebookFollow Us Youtube
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger... Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...