As much as I hate some of the lifers, term limits are just a concoction brought up to get out people that you can't elect out.
Term limits, its called voting for the other guy.
Generally I agree. My dad once pointed out something a long time ago that is still largely true - if the same party keeps a seat, they usually keep the same staff.
They have the same people they work with in DC. So the person who holds elective office might change, but nothing else does.
Term limits would give the appearance of kicking them out without actually doing so, while the people who actually DO a lot of the work - they remain.
It's kind of moot, because they remain there no matter what. My dad was an observer of the "deep state" decades before it had a name.
ONE of my concerns is that a Senator or Representative becomes less responsive to his constituents the longer he remains in office.
I think this is especially true of House members - they must spend a great deal of their time fund raising.
We observed recently a couple members speak their mind because they KNOW they're not returning. If you are term limited - you don't have to be wishy-washy.
You're still out of office. I like the fact that Virginia governors have a term limit of ONE term - they can run later, but they can't run for consecutive terms.
I think it works fairly well.
I think things work well when there's diversity of opinion and competition for seats. We have anywhere from 20-30 seats in the House that are unopposed in an election, and about twenty more with only token opposition.
Still more for which the opposing party hasn't won in decades, if ever. I don't know how to correct that - I find it hard to believe there's good reasons for people to always align with a given party for decades at a time.
HOWEVER -
The fact remains that people in office very rarely get voted OUT. They hold too much power, once ensconced. When 90-95% of the House gets re-elected - and the Senate, similarly - you're talking too much power.
It's scary to think that in many parts of this country and at the national level, good people don't run for a lot of reasons, but one is, their opposition is just too powerful and has too big a war chest (money) to challenge.
Think of it this way - in another time, you might hesitate to run against a Washington or Jefferson, simply because you believe they're national icons and people respect them too much.
But imagine if it was fear against an Andrew Johnson - because he just had too much money?
It would be good overall, for the country - to get new blood in there. To get men who are there to make a difference, not to secure a career.