Honestly, I haven't made my mind up on the subject, even after thinking it over most of my adult life.And yet you are calling for removal of that voice by advocating for the implementation of term limits. If the people want the same person shouldn't they be able to have that, which is how it is supposed to be.
But we DO put term limits on the President - and many states, the governor (and in SOME of those - since inception) - by your argument, we should be able to keep electing the same guy in, for life.
A better argument AGAINST term limits is the one that still bothers me - a typical Senator or House member has SO MUCH ON THEIR PLATE,
they rely heavily on staff to do most of their work FOR them. And often, THAT staff remains even when a new member of the same party takes the seat over. Which means a huge strata of unelected people are the "real" power in Washington.
Frankly - I am not sure that isn't always the case, now.
But THAT is a problem, because the federal government takes on far too much stuff that seriously SHOULD be done at the state level, and remain there. I swear every time I dig down into the federal government budget, it seems that we collect a crapload of money and all it does is get routed back to the states or individuals.
But - FOR term limits - I think it ensures - or at least, improves the likelihood - that candidates do not become part of the Washington bubble permanently. Biden likes to style himself as just some guy from Scranton. Aside from his home having been Delaware since he was a child, he's been in Washington almost as long as I've been alive.
One case I've made often - with rare exception - money usually wins and incumbents can just about always keep their seat, and that's especially true in the House - where the public has a chance to eject them every TWO years, but somehow, they don't. And the public really doesn't have as much say, IF they plan to just vote Democrat or Republican - heck, as many as 5-10% of seats are either unopposed or receive only token opposition.