My initial reaction was "this is good, we need this, why is Ted Cruz doing it?" Here's a pretty good explainer from NPR on why there should not be term limits. Ah, that's why. Okay. My initial...
My initial reaction was "this is good, we need this, why is Ted Cruz doing it?"
recent infighting among Republicans over who should be speaker of the U.S. House and health issues among aging members of Congress have reignited calls for federal term limits.
Ah, that's why. Okay.
My initial assumption was that somehow cutting out older incumbents would handycap the Democrats. Out of curiosity, I scraped some data from here to make this graph showing the fraction of US senators who have served more than X years. Here's the spreadsheet if anyone wants the data..
This is quick and dirty, so I make no high claim of accuracy, but in terms of answering my initial question about which party would be most affected, it seems like term limits would cut out a greater fraction of Republican senators.
Given the current trend in the Republican party, I'm assuming the appeal is that it would cut out the less radical Republicans, but I wonder if there's any data on that? I'm also curious how it would affect the progressiveness of the Democratic party. But I probably don't have the time to dig into things that far.
There's a further consequence as well: one of the biggest avenues for corruption of delegates is a quid pro quo arrangement whereby a delegate is offered a cushy private position within an...
There's a further consequence as well: one of the biggest avenues for corruption of delegates is a quid pro quo arrangement whereby a delegate is offered a cushy private position within an industry or lobby for an industry after their tenure is up in exchange for favorable representation during their term. The legality of this is disputable, tending toward negative, but it's extremely difficult to enforce for various reasons.
Term limits like this only strengthen the impulse to these arrangements unless specific proscription is included, and even then it's impossible to enforce without strict oversight and disciplinary power given to impartial parties, who in turn need to be accountable to the electorate in some way.
I think this idea misses the mark on just what has gone wrong in electoral politics in the US. The issue isn't exactly the specific individuals holding office so much as that only two political blocs have absolute control over who is allowed the opportunity to run for federal office. This proposal does nothing to address the representational problems inherent in a political duopoly such as ours, and really only encourages new and exciting forms of corrupting processes.
I want to make something abundantly clear: I find nearly everything the GOP advocates to be morally and ethically repugnant. The only thing keeping me from full-throated and vocal hatred of Republican agendas is my own acknowledgement that such a blanket position is a self-imposed blinkering that might blind me to functional reforms that might plausibly be presented by some fantastical GOP unicorn whose like hasn't been seen since the beginning of the last century, if not earlier.
That said, I would lay aside my long-standing and I think well-earned distrust of GOP policy if they offered reforms that actually addressed disproportionality in representation. Expansion of the House and SCOTUS and some form of proportional voting scheme for federal office are the bare minimum reforms necessary to even begin such a process. This is not that.
Republicans in Congress led by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to impose term limits for members of Congress.
The amendment would limit U.S. senators to two six-year terms and U.S. House members to three two-year terms. The two-page resolution states that after the amendment is passed by Congress and ratified by the states, the amendment would go into effect “within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress.”
The resolution proposes that after a member of the U.S. House has served three terms, they aren’t eligible to be reelected to the House. After a U.S. senator has served two terms, they are no longer eligible to be elected or appointed to the U.S. Senate.
“Term limits are critical to fixing what’s wrong with Washington, D.C.,” Cruz, who was just reelected to this third term in the Senate, said. “The Founding Fathers envisioned a government of citizen legislators who would serve for a few years and return home, not a government run by a small group of special interests and lifelong, permanently entrenched politicians who prey upon the brokenness of Washington to govern in a manner that is totally unaccountable to the American people. Term limits bring about long-overdue accountability. I urge my colleagues to advance this amendment to the states so that it may be quickly ratified and become a constitutional amendment.”
EDIT: See NaraVara's comments, they post studies regarding term limits not having the intended positive effects. I absolutely despise Ted Cruz (and my absolute distrust of him makes me skeptical...
EDIT: See NaraVara's comments, they post studies regarding term limits not having the intended positive effects.
I absolutely despise Ted Cruz (and my absolute distrust of him makes me skeptical of any legislation he introduces), but at least on the surface, this seems like a possibly good thing. I'd want to get into the weeds more but lifelong politicians tend to be problematic for numerous reasons.
Reading the article though, apparently he's introduced this proposal a few times in the past? If so then this probably has no chance anyway. It's not like the politicians would want to actually vote against their own best interests here.
This has been studied extensively by political scientists and the verdict is pretty clear that term limits on the legislature leads to more corruption, worse legislation, and greater influence by...
I'd want to get into the weeds more but lifelong politicians tend to be problematic for numerous reasons.
This has been studied extensively by political scientists and the verdict is pretty clear that term limits on the legislature leads to more corruption, worse legislation, and greater influence by lobbyists.
If you don’t want your politicians to serve too long your mechanism is to vote them out. Presumably, if their constituents keep voting for them then they must not mind them having tenure.
Which is why we need to enforce retirement ages instead. Once you hit the age of retirement (whether you're a good or bad politician), you MUST retire. No "end of term" nonsense either.
Which is why we need to enforce retirement ages instead. Once you hit the age of retirement (whether you're a good or bad politician), you MUST retire. No "end of term" nonsense either.
The problem I see here isn’t ageism, but rather that it further incentivizes politicians to increase the retirement age for their constituents. At least, that’s a problem if it’s pinned to the...
The problem I see here isn’t ageism, but rather that it further incentivizes politicians to increase the retirement age for their constituents.
At least, that’s a problem if it’s pinned to the social security retirement age. If congress has its own retirement age I could see it working but they could always raise it without making much of a stir.
I think there would actually be riots (by seniors) for raising the retirement age. I don't think it's something that would be very popular, and would get people voted out. Remember, seniors are...
I think there would actually be riots (by seniors) for raising the retirement age.
I don't think it's something that would be very popular, and would get people voted out. Remember, seniors are the highest percentage of registered voters.
Honestly I view gerontocracy as an indicator that incumbent advantages are simply too strong and it probably has to do with the influence of money in politics (incumbents are better at fundraising...
Honestly I view gerontocracy as an indicator that incumbent advantages are simply too strong and it probably has to do with the influence of money in politics (incumbents are better at fundraising and name recognition). If a constituency thinks their legislator is too old they should vote them out. If they continue winning then their constituents are signaling that they want them there. If this is obviously bad for them or we think that does not accurately reflect their will we should address how their will isn’t being reflected instead of trying to whack a mole at whatever output we don’t like has resulted.
You've touched on a real good point there: The real problems are poor representation, via network effects you describe as well as more nefarious things like voter suppression and gerrymandering.
You've touched on a real good point there: The real problems are poor representation, via network effects you describe as well as more nefarious things like voter suppression and gerrymandering.
While this is a great sentiment, you have to remember that most people, at least in the US, don't follow politics, so they either don't vote (which shame on them), or they pick the person that is...
While this is a great sentiment, you have to remember that most people, at least in the US, don't follow politics, so they either don't vote (which shame on them), or they pick the person that is already there 1. because of name recognition like you said, o 2. because they don't know any better.
There is also gerrymandering, and those affected most can't vote against the people who are ruining their lives.
If we’re going to be this cynical about democracy, as a concept, then I don’t think merely term limiting legislators is going to be the fix.
While this is a great sentiment, you have to remember that most people, at least in the US, don't follow politics, so they either don't vote (which shame on them), or they pick the person that is already there 1. because of name recognition like you said, o 2. because they don't know any better.
If we’re going to be this cynical about democracy, as a concept, then I don’t think merely term limiting legislators is going to be the fix.
Sources? Trying to imagine how they can study something that's never happened at the Federal level.
This has been studied extensively by political scientists and the verdict is pretty clear that term limits on the legislature leads to more corruption, worse legislation, and greater influence by lobbyists.
Sources?
Trying to imagine how they can study something that's never happened at the Federal level.
I linked this NPR explainer in my top-level post. There are states with term limits, so they've been able to do competitive research between states with and without limits.
I linked this NPR explainer in my top-level post. There are states with term limits, so they've been able to do competitive research between states with and without limits.
Many states such as California have tried term limits on their legislature which achieved little of the desired effect and instead ended up weakening the power of the legislature to the deference...
Many states such as California have tried term limits on their legislature which achieved little of the desired effect and instead ended up weakening the power of the legislature to the deference of governors and lobbyists. So if you want a more powerful presidency and more influential lobbyists then sure add term limits to Congress, but I don’t think that’s the outcome people are hoping for. https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/do-political-term-limits-work-387692/
If you want more democratic results in the US you’d be far better served by increasing the size of the House of Representatives or if you’re going to go through the trouble of a constitutional amendment, abolishing the senate completely.
we've been far overdue to increase the House. I hope the "the building can't house all of us" isn't an excuse anymore. I doubt eliminating the senate will get much popular attention. The situation...
we've been far overdue to increase the House. I hope the "the building can't house all of us" isn't an excuse anymore.
I doubt eliminating the senate will get much popular attention. The situation hasn't fundamentally change even over 200 year. We'd unironically have an easier time limiting lobbying funding.
Also, since it's talked about above, Age limits is inbetween. But it pretty much requires an inversion on traditional voting patterns. People that are already past whatever age limit we have will resist it, and older people tend to turnout more.
It’s a pretty consensus finding among comparativists. The most common examples are from Mexico because their term limits were extreme and almost universal. But there are comparisons between US...
It’s a pretty consensus finding among comparativists. The most common examples are from Mexico because their term limits were extreme and almost universal. But there are comparisons between US states as well. The effects and the mechanisms don’t really matter much whether it’s the federal level or not. The fact is that legislation is a skill that requires, experience, knowledge, and contacts all of which require tenure. If you don’t allow legislators to accrue tenure then power will flow to those who do, which are unaccountable deep state figures and lobbyists.
And as just a conceptual idea it falls on its face. If the goal is to have outcomes that are more democratic and accountable to the people, you need to hold legislators accountable to the people rather than allocating duties by fixed formulas.
Also, looking at those proposed numbers. A house rep could serve a maximum of 6 years. A senator could serve 12. That is incredibly low. That'd be reasonable if we never expect anybody younger...
Also, looking at those proposed numbers.
A house rep could serve a maximum of 6 years.
A senator could serve 12.
That is incredibly low. That'd be reasonable if we never expect anybody younger than 50 to run for Senate.
I've been at my job 12 years, as a more-or-less grunt, not even management. It took a solid 4 years just to really get a handle on the broader institution beyond just daily job functions, and I didn't even have a fraction of the responsibility or complexity a representative would have.
This proposal would insure we get nothing but cronies and nepobabies holding office....even worse than we do now.
One of the many barking dogs of Texas, keeps barking. News at 11. Not that I'm necessarily opposed to this amendment, just expecting the same thing that's happened for the last 8 years: Nothing
Sen. Cruz previously introduced resolutions to propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits in 2017, 2019, 2021, and 2023.
One of the many barking dogs of Texas, keeps barking. News at 11.
Not that I'm necessarily opposed to this amendment, just expecting the same thing that's happened for the last 8 years: Nothing
Indeed. Cruz is just looking to be perceived as a champion of term limits. He knows it will never pass and he himself likely opposes them, but he knows he can use this to say the "Demoncrats"...
Indeed. Cruz is just looking to be perceived as a champion of term limits. He knows it will never pass and he himself likely opposes them, but he knows he can use this to say the "Demoncrats" opposed him and term limits.
So we'd see a congressman serve for 6 years in their district, and then fight for 12 more years in the senate? It could be worse. I'd be interested to see what the demographics of the people who'd...
So we'd see a congressman serve for 6 years in their district, and then fight for 12 more years in the senate? It could be worse. I'd be interested to see what the demographics of the people who'd be termed out by this change are, though. It's perhaps unfairly biased of me, but I can't trust that Raphael "Ted" Cruz might do a potentially good thing without a cynical reason.
Without digging too far, here is a list of Reps and Senators that would be retired from their currently held positions. Unknown how many of these could run for the other side of Congress to get...
Without digging too far, here is a list of Reps and Senators that would be retired from their currently held positions. Unknown how many of these could run for the other side of Congress to get the other terms.
My initial reaction was "this is good, we need this, why is Ted Cruz doing it?"
Here's a pretty good explainer from NPR on why there should not be term limits.
Ah, that's why. Okay.
My initial assumption was that somehow cutting out older incumbents would handycap the Democrats. Out of curiosity, I scraped some data from here to make this graph showing the fraction of US senators who have served more than X years. Here's the spreadsheet if anyone wants the data..
This is quick and dirty, so I make no high claim of accuracy, but in terms of answering my initial question about which party would be most affected, it seems like term limits would cut out a greater fraction of Republican senators.
Given the current trend in the Republican party, I'm assuming the appeal is that it would cut out the less radical Republicans, but I wonder if there's any data on that? I'm also curious how it would affect the progressiveness of the Democratic party. But I probably don't have the time to dig into things that far.
There's a further consequence as well: one of the biggest avenues for corruption of delegates is a quid pro quo arrangement whereby a delegate is offered a cushy private position within an industry or lobby for an industry after their tenure is up in exchange for favorable representation during their term. The legality of this is disputable, tending toward negative, but it's extremely difficult to enforce for various reasons.
Term limits like this only strengthen the impulse to these arrangements unless specific proscription is included, and even then it's impossible to enforce without strict oversight and disciplinary power given to impartial parties, who in turn need to be accountable to the electorate in some way.
I think this idea misses the mark on just what has gone wrong in electoral politics in the US. The issue isn't exactly the specific individuals holding office so much as that only two political blocs have absolute control over who is allowed the opportunity to run for federal office. This proposal does nothing to address the representational problems inherent in a political duopoly such as ours, and really only encourages new and exciting forms of corrupting processes.
I want to make something abundantly clear: I find nearly everything the GOP advocates to be morally and ethically repugnant. The only thing keeping me from full-throated and vocal hatred of Republican agendas is my own acknowledgement that such a blanket position is a self-imposed blinkering that might blind me to functional reforms that might plausibly be presented by some fantastical GOP unicorn whose like hasn't been seen since the beginning of the last century, if not earlier.
That said, I would lay aside my long-standing and I think well-earned distrust of GOP policy if they offered reforms that actually addressed disproportionality in representation. Expansion of the House and SCOTUS and some form of proportional voting scheme for federal office are the bare minimum reforms necessary to even begin such a process. This is not that.
EDIT: See NaraVara's comments, they post studies regarding term limits not having the intended positive effects.
I absolutely despise Ted Cruz (and my absolute distrust of him makes me skeptical of any legislation he introduces), but at least on the surface, this seems like a possibly good thing. I'd want to get into the weeds more but lifelong politicians tend to be problematic for numerous reasons.
Reading the article though, apparently he's introduced this proposal a few times in the past? If so then this probably has no chance anyway. It's not like the politicians would want to actually vote against their own best interests here.
This has been studied extensively by political scientists and the verdict is pretty clear that term limits on the legislature leads to more corruption, worse legislation, and greater influence by lobbyists.
If you don’t want your politicians to serve too long your mechanism is to vote them out. Presumably, if their constituents keep voting for them then they must not mind them having tenure.
Which is why we need to enforce retirement ages instead. Once you hit the age of retirement (whether you're a good or bad politician), you MUST retire. No "end of term" nonsense either.
The problem I see here isn’t ageism, but rather that it further incentivizes politicians to increase the retirement age for their constituents.
At least, that’s a problem if it’s pinned to the social security retirement age. If congress has its own retirement age I could see it working but they could always raise it without making much of a stir.
I think there would actually be riots (by seniors) for raising the retirement age.
I don't think it's something that would be very popular, and would get people voted out. Remember, seniors are the highest percentage of registered voters.
Maybe there would. But I see politicians get away with terrible policy often enough that I'm not sure it's a certainty.
Honestly I view gerontocracy as an indicator that incumbent advantages are simply too strong and it probably has to do with the influence of money in politics (incumbents are better at fundraising and name recognition). If a constituency thinks their legislator is too old they should vote them out. If they continue winning then their constituents are signaling that they want them there. If this is obviously bad for them or we think that does not accurately reflect their will we should address how their will isn’t being reflected instead of trying to whack a mole at whatever output we don’t like has resulted.
You've touched on a real good point there: The real problems are poor representation, via network effects you describe as well as more nefarious things like voter suppression and gerrymandering.
While this is a great sentiment, you have to remember that most people, at least in the US, don't follow politics, so they either don't vote (which shame on them), or they pick the person that is already there 1. because of name recognition like you said, o 2. because they don't know any better.
There is also gerrymandering, and those affected most can't vote against the people who are ruining their lives.
If we’re going to be this cynical about democracy, as a concept, then I don’t think merely term limiting legislators is going to be the fix.
That seems a lot more reasonable!
And someone popping in complaining how it's ageism in 3... 2... 1...
Sources?
Trying to imagine how they can study something that's never happened at the Federal level.
I linked this NPR explainer in my top-level post. There are states with term limits, so they've been able to do competitive research between states with and without limits.
Thanks, hadn't seen that prior to commenting.
Many states such as California have tried term limits on their legislature which achieved little of the desired effect and instead ended up weakening the power of the legislature to the deference of governors and lobbyists. So if you want a more powerful presidency and more influential lobbyists then sure add term limits to Congress, but I don’t think that’s the outcome people are hoping for. https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/do-political-term-limits-work-387692/
If you want more democratic results in the US you’d be far better served by increasing the size of the House of Representatives or if you’re going to go through the trouble of a constitutional amendment, abolishing the senate completely.
we've been far overdue to increase the House. I hope the "the building can't house all of us" isn't an excuse anymore.
I doubt eliminating the senate will get much popular attention. The situation hasn't fundamentally change even over 200 year. We'd unironically have an easier time limiting lobbying funding.
Also, since it's talked about above, Age limits is inbetween. But it pretty much requires an inversion on traditional voting patterns. People that are already past whatever age limit we have will resist it, and older people tend to turnout more.
It’s a pretty consensus finding among comparativists. The most common examples are from Mexico because their term limits were extreme and almost universal. But there are comparisons between US states as well. The effects and the mechanisms don’t really matter much whether it’s the federal level or not. The fact is that legislation is a skill that requires, experience, knowledge, and contacts all of which require tenure. If you don’t allow legislators to accrue tenure then power will flow to those who do, which are unaccountable deep state figures and lobbyists.
And as just a conceptual idea it falls on its face. If the goal is to have outcomes that are more democratic and accountable to the people, you need to hold legislators accountable to the people rather than allocating duties by fixed formulas.
Also, looking at those proposed numbers.
A house rep could serve a maximum of 6 years.
A senator could serve 12.
That is incredibly low. That'd be reasonable if we never expect anybody younger than 50 to run for Senate.
I've been at my job 12 years, as a more-or-less grunt, not even management. It took a solid 4 years just to really get a handle on the broader institution beyond just daily job functions, and I didn't even have a fraction of the responsibility or complexity a representative would have.
This proposal would insure we get nothing but cronies and nepobabies holding office....even worse than we do now.
One of the many barking dogs of Texas, keeps barking. News at 11.
Not that I'm necessarily opposed to this amendment, just expecting the same thing that's happened for the last 8 years: Nothing
Cruz should lead by example and never run for office again.
Indeed. Cruz is just looking to be perceived as a champion of term limits. He knows it will never pass and he himself likely opposes them, but he knows he can use this to say the "Demoncrats" opposed him and term limits.
So we'd see a congressman serve for 6 years in their district, and then fight for 12 more years in the senate? It could be worse. I'd be interested to see what the demographics of the people who'd be termed out by this change are, though. It's perhaps unfairly biased of me, but I can't trust that Raphael "Ted" Cruz might do a potentially good thing without a cynical reason.
Without digging too far, here is a list of Reps and Senators that would be retired from their currently held positions. Unknown how many of these could run for the other side of Congress to get the other terms.
House: 186 gone, 102 Dems, 84 Repubs
Senate: 38 gone, 18 Dems, 19 Repubs, & Bernie Sanders