Please, stop with the TERM LIMITS bs.

[4bonhoffer]

Just watched the IL. Senate debate. Good & questionably points on all three, all are miles ahead of any republican.

However, for God’s sake STOP going along with agreeing to f”ing term limits! We HAVE term limits. They are called elections! Term limits are corporations wet dream. Corporations have the money to fund their choice endlessly. Even if a miracle occurs and we are able to pass HR1, I don’t want to loose someone who is doing an excellent job due to term limits. If they are not doing a good job, then vote them out. Term limits are a corporation’s wet dream . Democrats, please stop giving lip service to this nonsense.

[Americanme]

1. You are so right.

I've been saying this for years.

[Conjuay]

2. That's a good point

[EuterpeThelo]

9. Same!

For every AOC, there's a Bernie. We need them both. Agreed we should primary those who aren't effective, but I for one don't WANT to throw out the most experienced people in the job just for the sake of "fresh" faces who aren't masters of the process/procedure that our more seasoned Congresscritters often are and who don't yet have the established relationships/connections to get things done. Time is an arbitrary measure; it should be a meritocracy.

[thesquanderer]

54. re: "Agreed we should primary those who aren't effective"

It would help if there weren't a party establishment with their thumbs heavily on the scale for any incumbent.

I understand why they do it... being an incumbent gives someone a natural advantage in the general. But it does complicate the OP's argument of, "We HAVE term limits. They are called elections!" That's true... but the primary elections don't occur on a level playing field.

Also, "term limits" can be implemented different ways. There's a difference between limiting a congressperson to, say, 12 years of service, vs. limiting them to 30, or 40. I'm not sure the arguments against those are entirely the same.

[Callie1979]

75. I agree with you. Its ridiculous.

[CommonHumanity]

3. 100% Right on! NT

[everyonematters]

4. I think that the longer someone stays in politics, the more likely they have convictions.

If you have term limits, you will have people running and serving for the novelty of it or to pad their resume. The big problem is the money in politics.

[Walleye]

6. Yes, or to feather their nest, lately that's the goal

The Republicans think of politics is a great little moneymaker at this point. Our government is being ruined by wealthy people who think the United States is there for their amusement

[pnwmom]

90. The problem is that the LACK of term limits is what allows members of Congress to gain more seniority,

meaning, more power, which helps them to stand up against a dictator President.

[Walleye]

5. I agree 100%, besides it's unconstitutional, not that that matters anymore

[iemanja]

85. How is it unconstitutional?

Did you forget that there is a constitutional amendment mandating term limits for the presidency? What part of the constitution do you think terms limits violate?

[TomSlick]

88. The Constitution sets the qualification for representatives and senators.

Those qualifications do not include not having served more terms that stated in a law. States may not impose such a limit. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). The rationale should apply to federal legislation.

Like the the 22nd Amendment limiting presidents to two terms, term limits for representatives and senators would require a constitutional amendment.

[iemanja]

94. Ok

Point taken. Ty.

[Walleye]

98. I asked Google, they gave the specific Supreme Court case

“Yes, based on the 1995 Supreme Court ruling in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, congressional term limits imposed by states are unconstitutional. The Court decided that states cannot add qualifications for federal office beyond those listed in Article I of the Constitution. A constitutional amendment is required to impose term limits.”

[Michiblue]

7. Term limits who have deprived us . .

. . . of the incredible leadership of Nancy Pelosi, perhaps the most effective Speaker in U.S. history

[sop]

8. There are just as many good reasons for term limits as there are bad ones.

And if it were possible to pass a term limits law in Congress, and have it hold up to legal challenges in the Supreme Court, it would also be possible to pass a campaign finance law seriously limiting or even banning all corporate and dark money.

[leftstreet]

35. +1

[MadameButterfly]

37. We need campaign finance reform

I don't know what term limits has to do with it.

[Maru Kitteh]

65. Because they are two sides of the same bright, shiny coin.

That coin being the power which works to preserve itself, in the guise of serving the populace. Protecting incumbents from fascist opposition should be the purpose of the party, not placing their fingers on the scale to protect incumbents from Democratic voter support for other Democratic candidates. It makes sheep of us under the charge of herders. That’s gross, and should be left to the g.o.pedos party.

[MadameButterfly]

67. i also object to the party putting thumbs on the scale to promote the leadership's

preferred outcome in Democratic primaries. I just don't think term limits will solve it. Incumbents aren't the only people who benefit from this. Over and over I've watched the DNC pick their candidate and MSNBC promotes them. If not incumbents, they'll pick someone else who they believe will preserve their values.
We do have to stop making it political suicide for a new candidate to challenge an incumbent or a party favorite. We should always have the best candidate possible as demonstrated by elections. The voters should decide.

[Maru Kitteh]

83. I agree with that. I guess I was primarily speaking to the poster's

comment on the reasons why finance reform and term limit enactment are difficult to actually realize. It’s the entrenched preservation of power, maintaining and protecting itself I think.

I myself have no special attachment to the idea of term limits IF and where a level playing field without big money and dark money exists.

[MadameButterfly]

100. We have the same goal, I just think it's important to see these two issues separately

The people fighting campaign finance reform are the billionaires and corporations.

The people fighting term limits are more varied. Some are incumbents wanting to stay in power. Some are people who believe that once we get rid of most incumbents, the oligarchy will have all the power. Before all these 70+ year old incumbents got elected we didn't have Citizens United. It could be rough when they go.

Some who oppose term limits are people who value the experience and expertise of people who have been in office for a while. Who want it to be worth it for the best and brightest to make a career of serving in Congress; worth the effort to fund-raise and risk losing it all the next go round for a chance at staying around long enough to have a make a difference.

[harumph]

46. Bingo. See reply at #39

You're right. Term limits could work if other changes were put in place.

[MadameButterfly]

68. How about putting the other changes in place

without the term limits

[usaf-vet]

10. They WHERE CALLED ELECTIONS now they are called how do we screw the voters and keep them from voting.

[stopdiggin]

43. which, of course - doesn't address the subject (or point made) in the OP in the slightest ... - - -(nt)-

[PatSeg]

11. I agree

Term limits could deprive us of some serious and effective public servants.

[agingdem]

12. we need real term limits..two terms and out...

people vote name recognition/personal biases...and once elected they want to stay in office...stature/taxpayer funded travel/free healthcare/media attention...their supposed calling to improve the lives of their constituents becomes a way of life/an obsession/a pathway to wealth...and there's no way in hell they are going to give that up...which is why twenty-four members of Congress are 80 years old and older/eight-six members are 70 years old and older..

Just so you know this isn't an ageism thing...I'm 77..I know my limitations both physically and cognitively...

[ShazzieB]

101. Even for the House, where each term is only 2 years?

In the Senate, 2 terms = 12 years. But in the House, 2 terms = 4 years, hardly long enough to get fully acclimated imo.

I'm not a huge fan of term limits in general, but for the House, I don't think 2 terms would be nearly enough time for people to become fully effective.

[themaguffin]

13. I've been preaching this for years. Not to mention the revolving door to lobbying would accelerate...

[tirebiter]

14. Term limits are aniicemocratic. If they've been there too long vote em out.

[ibegurpard]

15. There are so many things that need to be reformed before we can even consider term limits

Drastic limits on outside money in politics... which would require a constitutional amendment considering Citizens United.
Ranked choice voting and then additional political parties... in that order.
Those are the first few that come to mind.

[ybbor]

16. Preach!

They make no sense when elections can eliminate the bad ones. It’s like saying any profession should get rid of those after they have finally become competent at their jobs. If they suck, as in all professions, you can get rid of them.

[Emile]

17. The problem is gerrymandering, not term limits.

[Martin Eden]

18. I've been arguing against term limits for years.

Yes, there is a problem of corruption in which embedded politicians gain advantage over potentially better young candidate. But term limits go after a symptom rather than the root cause of corruption, which is big special interest money in our electoral and legislative system.

Term limits would discourage true public servants from seeking a career in elective office, and expel good representatives just when they're getting really good at their jobs. Without correcting the root cause of the problem, big money would finance candidates motivated by what they could get from the office, including lucrative positions upon leaving office.

Now, please excuse me for being a grammar nazi:

The word "loose" rhymes with juice. I think you meant "lose," which rhymes with booze.

This has become my pet peeve, because I see it so often. Again, I apologize.

[MichMan]

81. Very difficult to overcome incumbent name recognition

"Term limits would discourage true public servants from seeking a career in elective office..."

John Dingell Jr. from Michigan was in Congress 59 years from 1955-2015. By the way, he succeeded his father John Sr who served from 1933-1955. John Jr. retired in 1995 and was succeeded in office by his wife, Debbie Dingell who still hold office.

That means someone named Dingell has held the seat for 93 straight years. Not saying they didn't do a good job, but IMO we shouldn't have political dynasties lasting 9 decades.

How many other "true public servants" in that district just gave up knowing that they had zero chance of ever being elected?

[Martin Eden]

87. Every citizen should recognize the name of their representative in the House and both senators

If you don't even know their name, how are you to judge whether or not they're doing a good job representing your interests and values?

If name recognition is the only criteria by which a significant percent of voters cast their ballots, then we have a problem that goes much deeper than term limits.

Did the Dingells do a good job? If yes, why cast them out simply because constituents were familiar with them? If not, then they should be voted out.

By the way, the part of my post you quoted was not about people in office. It was about potential public servants who would like to make a career in elected office, but would choose a different career knowing they would have to start a different career after x-number of terms.

I think more harm than good would come by disqualifying an elected representative just because they've won x-number of elections. There may be a very positive reason why constituents decide to keep them in office.

There might be actual unfair advantages for incumbents, worthy of discussion. I'd bet that mostly has to do with the pernicious influence of money in politics, whilich can actually cut both ways. Another is the media environment, which is another huge can of worms.

[MichMan]

91. I believe name recognition is a significant factor for many voters

That is why there are many political dynasties spanning multiple generations. Everyone would agree that all voters should know the names of their representatives, but sadly, a significant number have little or no interest in politics, and only vote in presidential elections every 4 years. Hell, lots of people couldn't name their own senators, any SC justices or the VP if asked.

[Martin Eden]

93. And THAT is why our representative democracy is so dysfunctional

An underinformed disengaged citizenry is easier to manipulate by oligarchs who own media and finance the careers of politicians.

[DownriverDem]

19. Totally agree

We have term limits in Michigan for governor, LT governor, AG and SOS and a 12 year in office plan for other state offices. All it does is get rid of good folks.

[Polybius]

20. I'll take it a step further

Repeal the 22nd.

[themaguffin]

22. let's hold off until trump is out. We don't need to give him even more incentive to fuck things up.

[Polybius]

23. He's more unpopular than ever now though

Plus, imagine 82 year old Trump vs 66 year old Obama? Obama would crush him.

[themaguffin]

61. Obama isn't going to run. Getting past this shit show is priority 1

[cab67]

70. at this point -

- a colony of fire ants would stand a good chance of crushing Old Colostomy.

[Pototan]

21. 100% agree. The best argument against term limits is this question:

what would you rather have had, an Obama third term or a Trump first term?

[tinrobot]

29. I like that analogy.

[homegirl]

89. No question

an Obama third term. FDR died very early in his fourth term. With good reason an amendment was passed to limit the presidency to two terms. And right now who has his followers hinting at a third term? And we all know why.

And all those politicians who make it to D.C. have guaranteed pensions, health insurance and a few other benefits when they retire. I am very old and I will quote my father who said.."no on over 65 should be in Congress, they do not vote for the people because they will not have to live with the consequences of their votes."

[radical noodle]

24. Yes!

For years I thought I was "missing" something in the term limits argument. Many Democrats seemed to agree with it and I kept searching for the reason I should. I couldn't find much in the way of a benefit unless we could just term limit republicans and not Democrats. In addition to the points you mention, I've always thought experience counts for something.

There does come a time that a brain addled 90+ year old who seems to not know who he/she is or where they are should be gently sent home and replaced.

[otchmoson]

25. If elections define one's term . . .

then we don't need a law . . . we need to educate and get out the vote. On the other hand, unelected officials DO need term limits . . . to be determined by the electorate through their democratically elected officials. I don't believe a judgeship should be a lifetime appointment. A 35-40 year old appointee is certainly different from that person 50 years hence. Some offices (FED chairman, FBI director, etc.) should be for more than 4 years, but length to be determined by voters/congress. Just my 2-cents.

[mopinko]

26. it just empowers staffers.

new congress people dont hire off the street. esp if they r replacing someone in their own party, they hire ppl already doing the job.
you’d just b shuffling the deck. period.

[relayerbob]

27. Yes, because it's important to have octogenerians driving our culture

[tinrobot]

28. Thank you. We need to fix election financing, gerrymandering, and the electoral college.

Term limits do nothing to address those issues, they only give the powers behind the scenes more power.

[cab67]

30. I would make one exception -

Supreme Court justices.

Given how much life expectancy has grown since the Constitution was written, it's too easy for stacked court to cause real damage for many decades.

I understand and accept the rationale behind institutional memory, and if we can get a good justice on the Court, I'd want that person to be there for a while. But I don't think putting an 18-year or 22-year limit on justice terms is a bad thing.

[ibegurpard]

32. there is no way to remove Supreme Court justices

unlike politicians with elections.
So yeah I would argue that in this case limits on their terms are something that should be considered.

[calimary]

103. Seems like a reasonable idea.

[Mysterian]

31. Please stop telling people what to consider/debate

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[CaptainTruth]

33. How about for SCOTUS?

[stopdiggin]

52. The voters NEVER got a choice there

which is why they are called life time APPOINTMENTS
and a rather different thing

[CaptainTruth]

60. Yes, clearly. And I still think it makes sense to have term limits for SCOTUS.

I've proposed 36 year terms with one justice being replaced every 4 years, first-in, first-out. That way every president gets 1 appointment per term.

Within that framework I'm sure we could work out a way to handle deaths resignations etc.

[LogDog75]

71. I'm in favor of 8 years for SC Justices

I'm of the belief the Supreme Court needs to have turn-over of justices on a regular basis and no justice can serve beyond age 65. My idea is as follows:

1. The current longest serving justice will be required to "retire" within 2 years and the President will nominate a replacement.
2. The next current longest serving justice will be replaced, if they've served 8 years or more, in 2 years. Continue this process until all justices serving over 8 years have retired.
3. Any current justices who have served less than 8 years will be replaced one at a time every two years. If two justices were appointed in the same year, the justice appointed first would be replaced first and two years later the other justice.
4. Once all justices have been replaced, every 2 years thereafter a justice would be replace meaning no president could appoint more than 2 justices per term unless a justice dies or retires.

This plan would prevent a Supreme Court from being to Democratic or republican leaning for years. T

[CaptainTruth]

80. Interesting. Thanks for sharing!

It looks like that system would allow every president to appoint (nominate) 2 justices per term, yes?

In my proposal I was thinking of trying to keep the SCOTUS lineup more stable & not allow any POTUS to idealogically influence it too much, only allowing POTUS 1 nominee per term.

Honestly, given how so many SCOTUS decisions in the modern era have come down 5-4, either way, I'm inclined to try & limit POTUS to 1 nominee per term, not 2.

[Mr. Mustard 2023]

34. I agree with you and add this point:

Money in politics is the problem, so even if we did enact term limits they'll just bribe them faster, so to speak. Promising them cush jobs will take more emphasis, because they'll be termed out sooner.

Term limits will not help imo, as long as we can legally bribe our elected leaders, and others.

[leftstreet]

36. Make them fill out job applications

Like the rest of us

Set qualifications OTHER than birth status and age before they can even qualify to run

[Beausoleil]

38. What we need is campaign finance reform

Once unlimited money is out of the equation, term limits really becomes a moot point because the lesser funded candidates can compete and extremists do not win all the primaries (their loud chatter won't earn them as much money).

[harumph]

39. I used to be in the no term limits camp - not anymore.

3 term limit for each representative
2 term limit for each senator.
If the parties cannot come up with new blood with fresh ideas after 6 or 12 years respectively, then we need a substantially amended constitution - because this "f-king" piece of paper as 'W' allegedly called it, isn't cutting the mustard. I think anyone can see that the so-called 'guardrails' are really overcooked noodles supported by toothpicks.

Up-thread - someone made a comment about Pelosi. I agree she's great. But for every Pelosi, there's a standing zombie like Mitch McConnell. Where is Mitch nowadays? Anybody remember Feinstein? Holy f**k people - that was embarrassing! Ted Cruz was elected first in 2013. Wouldn't it be great if he was just done? Chuck Grassley first took office in 1981. And there was Kay Grainger - who was found by a reporter to be in assisted living (memory care).

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/03/14/kay-granger-dementia-dc-media-00210317

Term limits would incentivize the parties not to rely on so few people and to cultivate new talent. And please - all this talk of unique talent (ooo-la-la!) that we would be missing. There are many, many talented people in this country - probably some on this board - who are educated - good thinkers - good speakers - and could learn parliamentary procedure (yes, that's what it's called even in the US).

Regarding the "constitution," IMO, the unilateral pardon power of the president needs to be replaced by limiting the chief executive to recommending pardons that are reviewed by an appointed non-partisan committee that is completely independent from the president and has guaranteed funding. Many democracies not mentally chained to 18th century norms do it that way.
No more quid pro quo.

IMO Federal elections should be funded solely by tax dollars (this amt will be capped according to inflation) and will run for a limited period - not to exceed...

Our judicial system is painfully reactive and treats every new insult to justice like it's a new g-damned question at hand - when it's the same old shit. The courts need to have meaningful (i.e., painful) sanction power. Yet, they don't - and Trump et al. continues to overwhelm the courts with meritless cack.

We have a poorly functioning democracy and probably half of the adults are functionally illiterate. That's where we are and we need to make substantive changes, not just redecorate.

I have it on the authority of a poster in another thread that the constitution will never be amended again. If I truly believed that, I'd be packing my bags.

[stopdiggin]

49. except that 'term limits' doesn't really address any of the aggrievements you have with the system

And - conversely, would very likely 'empower' the 'behind the scenes' influence of money and non-governmental actors and organization.
If you and your mates want 'new talent' - you're quite right, there's plenty of it around - you have every right to pull the lever for them - and it's not at all impossible for a newbie to prevail. (Mamdani ?) And - in almost every jurisdiction - the bar to placing that person's name on the ballot has been kept (by design) very modest and approachable. Get out there and promote your 'new ideas' and 'new faces'!

Meanwhile - let ME vote for who I want to ...

[Mosby]

40. I think we need an age limit for service

75 years old for all three branches and I would change the term to 4 years for all members of congress. Mandatory retirement for all judges at 75, including the SC.

[Maraya1969]

41. You are right. I was so impressed with our Dems in Congress during the Ghislaine Bondi hearings this past weekend

Our Dems are so smart and they get better as they age. They blow the other side away. Bondi was so shook up - it was a sight to behold!

[Layzeebeaver]

42. I believe in term limits.

FOR REPUBLICANS ONLY.

[stopdiggin]

44. Term limits has always been the province of the low brow, bumper sticker mentality

I'd like to keep my options available to me - thank you very much.'
And - having 'others' decide what the options will be for me to vote on ... Gosh, I dunno' - sounds just a little 'bread and circus-y' and big brotherish - when you stop and give it any thought to speak of.

[FascismIsDeath]

45. Term limits don't solve a single problem. Its a populist slogan that adds zero value to anything.

[Wonder Why]

47. I'm a believer in term limits. However, back during the Gingrich days, the repugs talked term limits until they got

in office, then immediately abandoned it as they realized they were limiting it themselves so they can't be trusted.

So term limits drawn up ONLY when there is a majority Democratic Senate, Congress and President.
It doesn't get voted on until the repugs win the elections but haven't taken office.
It becomes effective only when the repugs take office.
No bonuses or any other perks.
You get in office. You get paid for the duration only.
You get medical benefits only for duration.
You get COBRA for 18 months afterwards just like on the outside.
You get money in a retirement fund just like any other job only for the time you served.
You get no other perks after leaving office such as the ability to keep campaign money or any other benefit.
You can't work for a lobbying group or a government contractor or potential one for 2 years after leaving office.

[Shrek]

48. Do you favor repeal of the 22nd amendment? n/t

[Torchlight]

50. Both that and the age-baiting arguments have too many flaws

for me to take seriously. Appeals to emotion just aren’t my cup of tea, and when the strongest arguments made are no more than bumper-sticker slogans, I can’t really call it an argument at all.

[marble falls]

51. We already have term limits: the voting cycle. Get the vote out. Stop accepting your vote means nothing ...

... it only mean nothing if you don't vote.

[hay rick]

53. Florida is the poster child for the corrupting influence of term limits.

Florida politicians come up through a system in which statewide offices have 8 year term limits. The 120 Florida House members and 40 State Senators are paid around $30,000 a year- not enough to support a family. The people that are able to do this are in a position where they can take 3 months leave from their business or come from family wealth. Because these jobs do not create a professional career path, the greater incentive is to use the position and contacts to benefit themselves and those who have supported them and will continue to benefit them in the future. The incentives are perverse and grease the wheels of corruption.

If we do not offer politicians a path to developing professional excellence we will get the mediocrity and widespread corruption we claim we wish to avoid.

[markodochartaigh]

57. B I.N.G.O.

[ABC123Easy]

55. I disagree

While I do agree with your points on elections and money in politics, I'm for term limits, laws removing that money in politics you refer to, and anti gerrymandering laws.
As we've seen, we can't rely solely upon voting people out. If that were true, Lauren Boebert, MTG, Jim Jordan, etc....wouldn't keep getting elected.
I live in NC where the GOP has rigged the districts to the point where it would take near 70% of the vote going to the Dems in order for them to take control of the general assembly.
Just saying, relying on elections doesn't cut it.

[cab67]

69. In my opinion -

- getting rid of gerrymandering would also solve this problem.

Every seat in the House should be competitive for every election.

[markpkessinger]

73. You may be able to pass laws to limit partisan gerrymandering, BUT . . .

. . . yoju still have to contend with decennial redistricting. Redistricting MUST occur in order to account for shifting populations.

[ABC123Easy]

82. Agreed!

[The Revolution]

97. It doesn't solve it for the Senate

Which has a bigger problem with peple clinging on forever anyway.

[markodochartaigh]

56. WHY IS NOBODY SAYING the bottom line.

A senator or representative takes at least a year for them and their staff to find their footing in the system. And even longer to make meaningful connections with their peers.
Lobbyists are hired because they know the system and already gave plenty of connections with big corporations and our oiligarchs.
Term limits ensure that the lobbyists will increase their power and elected representatives' power will decrease in relation. It's like putting first graders into a class of high school seniors.
If you are for term limits, you are advocating that elected representatives should have less power than lobbyists chosen by the corporations that the representatives are supposed to regulate.

[ALBliberal]

58. Example: what if Chris Murphy of Adam Schiff were

Term limited? I really don’t like the idea at all. I could name other great senators as well.

[pandr32]

59. I am with you on this.

[Exp]

62. Agreed, for additional reasons:

1. Lobbyists will have the advantage over a constant wave of Freshmen Congress members.

2. It takes years to use the rules correctly.

3. Seniority to head committees takes years of experience.

And yes, corporate lobbyists WOULD LOVE to have new, inexperienced faces coming in every four years.

[betsuni]

63. Nationalization of politics, blaming those crooks off in Washington, Drain the Swamp. But not their own reps!

They want a choice to vote for their own representation when they like them. If they think about it.

Term limits is one of the phony divisions splitting Democrats into "establishment" (corrupt) or "progressive" (not corrupt). Obama talked about this fake BS division in his interview. Goals are the same, the only difference is strategy on how to reach those goals.

[MatthewStLouis]

64. Completely agree!

Some of the things we really need are more transparency and campaign finance reform. I think we could also cut the GOP's "SAVE Act" crap off at the knees with our own "Safe and Sane Act". Everyone eligible to vote, automatically registered to vote and given a free voter ID. Also longer voting periods and mail-in voting nationwide.

[tritsofme]

66. Agree completely. Term limits are really just a limit on Democracy. It's telling voters they can't have their chosen

candidate, because you know better than they do.

[LogDog75]

72. I favor term limits for Executive offices and Supreme Courts

The president, governors, and elected mayors hold executive offices which have more power than other elected offices. Because of that, I favor executive officers be limited to no more than 2 terms.

For the U. S and state Supreme Courts, I favor 8 year term limits. Similar to the executive officers, Supreme Court justices have enormous power and influence over the laws of the federal and state governments. That power should not be concentrated in the hands of one or a small group of individuals for a long period of time.

As for House of Representatives, Senators, state and local offices, I think there should be no term limits. The voters should be the ones to decide who should represent them at every election.

[Callie1979]

74. Sorry I still support an Amendment for term limits. Lifetime seats have gotten ridiculous.

Incumbency is a huge advantage & hard to overcome.
Too many very old people looking horrible.
Every State would ratify it.

We have term limits for President.

[MichMan]

92. Dingell family from Detroit area

John Dingell Sr held Congressional seat from 1933-1955
John Dingell Jr then was elected from 1955-2015 when he retired
John Jr wife Debbie Dingell then was elected from 2015-2026 and still in office

93 years and still counting for the same family dynasty

[Callie1979]

99. Perfect example. I wasnt aware of John Sr; 93 YEARS!!?? This is exactly the problem.

And people called the Clintons a dynasty. Is there one longer than THIS example?

[Dave says]

77. Citizen's United is the "corporate wet dream" that term limits, well, limits

[Figarosmom]

78. I whole heartedly agree 👍

[JohnnyRingo]

79. Agreed! People only want term limits when the don't like who's in office.

Imagine showing Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders the door years ago.
Worse... The idea of term limits assumes there in an inexhaustible supply of worthy candidates.
Don't make me make a list of people too stupid or corrupt be in office. Lookin' at you Louie Gohmert.

[iemanja]

84. Why is it that people think they have a right to censors others' posts and thoughts

You do not. You oppose term limits. Fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but you have no right to decide what others post and think.

[Shrek]

102. Censoring posts and thoughts happens every day here

Viewpoint discrimination is explicitly built in to the Terms of Service.

[mdbl]

86. Can we at least change the presidential term limit to 1 week for this presidency only?

[AncientOfDays]

95. Term limits are stupid

A long discussion here:

=========
CMV: Term limits are a stupid, ineffective, undemocratic, bad idea

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1jepko2/cmv_term_limits_are_a_stupid_ineffective/

[Melon]

96. I absolutely support term limits and age limits for government. No more geriatric politicians.

Past 70 years old. How many issue among geriatric politicians do we have to witness before taking action?