Should there be term limits for elected officials?

[greenforest32]

I personally oppose term limits as I don't believe they solve anything. Why shouldn't I be able to vote for the same person every election if I approve of their performance?

If you want a different person in their position, vote them out of office.

Your thoughts?

[Franzl]

Term limits are undemocratic. Oppose.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not against in principle, but they should be long enough to allow a popular politician to stay for some time. I support raising the term limit for President from 2 to 3.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Stupid and undemocratic, end of.

[I Am Feeblepizza.]

America is a republic and not a democracy. There are limits on power. The majority doesn't always rule.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

America is a republic and not a democracy. There are limits on power. The majority doesn't always rule.

Cliché is no substitute for thought.

[minionofmidas]

Limiting politicians' terms is the voters' duty.

Of course, they need to be given an election setup that enables them to do so.

[Franzl]

America is a republic and not a democracy. There are limits on power. The majority doesn't always rule.

This idiotic distinction between "republic" and "democracy" is an exclusively American thing. It also unfortunately shows that you don't know the meaning of the words.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Where's the status quo option (i.e., for president only, leave term limits for local level offices to the local level)?

I don't necessarily hold that position, but it should be available, IMO.

[Franzl]

Where's the status quo option (i.e., for president only, leave term limits for local level offices to the local level)?

I don't necessarily hold that position, but it should be available, IMO.

The country isn't specified in the question.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Strikes me as a sort of fake reform. People typically support them to eliminate the practice of there being career politicians, but it doesn't really work. Here politicians often jump from one office to another. With eight years allowed in each office, they can have pretty long careers.

[RI]

No. Never.

[Хahar 🤔]

America is a republic and not a democracy. There are limits on power. The majority doesn't always rule.

I feel like this could be posted in response to any thread with equal validity (or lack thereof).

[© tweed]

careerism is undemocratic.  98-99% incumbent re-election rates are undemocratic.

[The Mikado]

careerism is undemocratic.  98-99% incumbent re-election rates are undemocratic.

Are you just going to assert that?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't have a whole lot of a problem with consecutive term limits for certain offices, but hard-limits I don't really like, so no.

[Gustaf]

Term-limits obviously aren't ideal. They may be a second-best solution if the political system isn't working.

Of course, the US version is silly since you only have term limits for offices where it isn't really needed (like the presidency) and not where it would do good (Congress).

[I Am Feeblepizza.]

America is a republic and not a democracy. There are limits on power. The majority doesn't always rule.

This idiotic distinction between "republic" and "democracy" is an exclusively American thing. It also unfortunately shows that you don't know the meaning of the words.

Democracy is when the supreme power of government rests in the hands of the voters alone.

A republic is where the supreme power of government rests in the hands of certain citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen either directly or indirectly by those citizens.

I do know the meaning of the words. There's a pretty fundamental between the two terms. And I assume that the question pertains to the U.S. because this site is centered mostly around American politics and elections.

[minionofmidas]

So what, then, would be a current or historical exemplar of this bizarre notion of democracy?

[© tweed]

careerism is undemocratic.  98-99% incumbent re-election rates are undemocratic.

Are you just going to assert that?

people are perfectly comfortable asserting "term limits are undemocratic" as a sort of truism when presented with this question, so, sure, I am.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

careerism is undemocratic.  98-99% incumbent re-election rates are undemocratic.

Are you just going to assert that?

people are perfectly comfortable asserting "term limits are undemocratic" as a sort of truism when presented with this question, so, sure, I am.

That's because a term limit is major (and completely arbitrary) restriction on the choice of the electorate, so there's no need to go into any detail.

[minionofmidas]

Of course 98-99% incumbent reelection rates are undemocratic. But they're a symptom of something, not a cause.

[© tweed]

careerism is undemocratic.  98-99% incumbent re-election rates are undemocratic.

Are you just going to assert that?

people are perfectly comfortable asserting "term limits are undemocratic" as a sort of truism when presented with this question, so, sure, I am.

That's because a term limit is major (and completely arbitrary) restriction on the choice of the electorate, so there's no need to go into any detail.

in the same sense that antitrust legislation is a restriction on the consumer.

[minionofmidas]

Ah, but antitrust legislation does not (usually) provide blanket bans.

So... some system that tested whether politician x, who's held legislative office for at least so many years, has at one point used influence to ensure he's getting an even safer district; and then bans him from running for office in the future...
Yeah well, ensuring the thing is actually independent would probably be a pain in the ass.

[© tweed]

the point I was making is that, when you follow a line of logic down its road far enough, you sometimes hit a paradox.  such as 'free competition' leading to monopoly.