Term Limits for US Congressmen?

One of the more slightly annoying peculiarities of United States Government is that in a system dominated by fear of tyranny, any congressman or woman can hypothetically be elected and re-elected for as long as he or she may live. I was wondering, with a POD between 1788 and 1900, how could we wind up with a US government with term limits for Federal Lawmakers. Bonus points if said reform is a bill/amendment that passes through Congress relatively easily.
 
Not very easily. Congress speaks with many voices, so there's no threat of a tyrannt just rising from it, whereas the Presidency is just one man, and one man with too much power can be a big problem. 12 Year limit on Congress would be nice; it's a place that's in dire need of circulation of new ideas.
 
I prefer this:

Congressional Term Amendment
No member of Congress shall hold his position–or any other–within the federal government (save for the presidency) for more than one consecutive term.
 
That means a Congress with near-zero political experience, especially with those ridiculous 2-year terms you use. How about at least something like, say, 6 year terms, with congress being elected in thirds every two years?
 

Thande

Donor
Mexico does use that system: no elected position allows re-election. The president serves for six years, the senators serve for six years, and the deputies (eqv. of Congressmen in the USA) serve for three years. This leads to very rapid turnover of course. So it's not exactly ASB that the USA would do something similar.
 
That means a Congress with near-zero political experience

Why? I said consecutive. That forces people to do their jobs instead of work on reelection, because if they don't, whoever supplants them WILL do their jobs and the first set won't be reelected.
 
Why? I said consecutive. That forces people to do their jobs instead of work on reelection, because if they don't, whoever supplants them WILL do their jobs and the first set won't be reelected.
Oops, managed to miss the consecutive part. OK, that would indeed massively improve things.
 
That means a Congress with near-zero political experience, especially with those ridiculous 2-year terms you use. How about at least something like, say, 6 year terms, with congress being elected in thirds every two years?

Concerning Congress, political experience and stagnation are pretty much the same thing. It's appropriate that the federal capital was built on a swamp.
 
Why? I said consecutive. That forces people to do their jobs instead of work on reelection, because if they don't, whoever supplants them WILL do their jobs and the first set won't be reelected.

Very often it forces them to prepare for their next job since they know they can't keep their present one. This often makes them suck up to whoever they want to get their next job from.
 
Considering that we didn't introduce term limits for any office on the federal level until the 1940s, it would be very difficult to get term limits at an earlier date. All efforts before the second Roosevelt Administration failed completely: the only way I can think you'll get formal presidential term limits is by having someone serve three or four terms earlier on, and the reaction to that being the same as OTL. Even then, it would be quite difficult to enshrine Congressional term limits, considering that we haven't done that IOTL either, even with the executive term limit we instituted. You'd have to have events that really discredit Congress in a very fundamental way to get that kind of change.
 
There is no reason for limiting the number of terms for the representatives. It should be left to the people who elect them. The term itself is ridiculously short, only two years. Insufficient period for learning one's district and putting one's ideas into action. It should be increased to a minimum of four years.
 
That means a Congress with near-zero political experience, especially with those ridiculous 2-year terms you use. How about at least something like, say, 6 year terms, with congress being elected in thirds every two years?

I would support a similar system, except it would include:
  • US Senators limited to only one six-year term, and adjustments to the voting schedule to put the entire Senate up for election at the same time (like the House).
  • US Congressmen/women limited to three two-year terms (consecutive or nonconsecutive) with a maximum service of six years. Elections are held every two years with the entire Congress up for either re-election or new elections.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
There is no reason for limiting the number of terms for the representatives. It should be left to the people who elect them.

Yes, exactly. Not to be trite but there are term limits, they're called elections. The idea that voters can't be trusted to throw a poor performing or out right corrupt politician out of office on their own and need to rely on term limits betrays a pretty dim view of the electorate.

But even setting that aside there is no evidence that terms limits definitively solve the problems of entrenched power, corruption or poor job performance. Freshman lawmakers have learning curve to overcome limiting their ability to accomplish anything. For the ones who now spend all their time worrying about reelection with term limits they will simply spend their time lining themselves up for a job elsewhere in government or the private sector (ie lobbying) when they are inevitably out of office. A bad apple is a bad apple. Maybe you can force them out after one term with term limits (again this assumes the electorate is incapable of doing this on its own) but you also force out the good apples with them.

Some studies have shown that term limits ramp up the efforts of lobbyists. Rather than approaching a congressman with the idea that helping him now (most of the time with money, but potential just political capital) that said congressman will return the favor down the road lobbyists need to have immediate effect since that person won't be in office in a few years to pay them back. Add to the fact that you have an entire class of legislators out of office after each election, many of whom want to remain 'in the game' so they are engaged with the system and can be more influential when/if they are later re-elected and returned to office. Our system already sees most former congressman go into lobby at least as part time consultants if not as full time hired guns. With term limits it would just be a revolving door that would lead to more collusion between lobbyists and lawmakers.

Ultimately I don't think things would be any better with term limits. Perhaps they wouldn't be worse, there's no guarantee of that, but I really don't think they would be better. Electoral reform, especially campaign finance laws, would be a much much more effective tool to address the issues term limits are often drafted to address. And perhaps restrictions on the way one could use the powers of office in campaigning, to limit the built in advantages of incumbency. I realize there's a very anti-establishment populist mentality en vogue right now but experience is not a bad thing. Nor frankly is professionalism. When you're asked to help run the largest economy, bureaucracy and military in the world it would, perhaps, help to know what you're doing.
 
The real problem is the idea of a 'political class' of professional politicians and lobbyists didn't exist during the American Revolution. It was expected that 'gentlemen' as in major landowners, successful businessmen and lawyers, would serve for a time in the government of their state or the federal government. However, it was also expected that they'd retire to private life after a period in government. Washington returned to Mount Vernon after commanding the Continental Army and after being president. Jefferson retired to his villa after being president.
 
Top