> Let's get real...term limits

This is a proven strategy for tanking legislation.

Ten lawmakers on a linear political spectrum. Compromise is at 5. 1, 2, 9 and 10 said no; 3 and 8 grudgingly accepted. The measure looks poised to pass with six votes.

What can you do to tank it? Propose a sizzling 3½. 3 can't help but demand it at all costs. It's so juicy! And so close to the real intent behind 5! 8, meanwhile, horrified and betrayed, tells everyone to kindly fuck off. The centre holds. But the fringes have frayed enough to compromise passage.

We're in a rare state of inching bipartisanship. That mitigates the last decades' go-to strategy of lobbing landmines from the extremes, aiming to tear apart that delicate ground of negotiating space from the poles; to make moderation tantamount to treason. I suspect we'll now see more baiting of edges to chew away at the most-extreme moderates instead, an escalating game of No True Scotsman at the fringes.

Term limits increase the power of lobbyist, according to what I’ve read. They’re not a panacea.

Age limits > Term limits.

My gut reaction is that term limits are a significant change that probably create a lot of unintended downstream consequences.

Of all the things that make me question term limits, the number one is the question of experience. If you have someone with 30 years experience being a politician are they likely to be more effective than someone with 0 or 2 years experience? I think it's pretty jaded to answer no. If everyone has been around for 30 years it creates onboarding problems when people die or leave. I think that is the best argument for term limits.

I also question what is the exact problem term limits are trying to solve? Because I am not sure I understand what problem they are trying to solve.

The problems with American politics are:

  Campaign financing
  Two party system
  The senate representing states (1 Wyoming person has equal say to 30 Californians)
  Lack of faith in the election process/Electoral college
  No way to make changes that are not aligned with the politicians themselves

I don't see how term limits address any of those.

I don't really get the appeal. We don't term limit anyone in any other job, generally we believe tenure and experience corresponds with competency. Would you accept a term limit for a software engineer? Of course not. Your value to an organization, your ability to be effective, to do good work, increases the longer you stay. You're good, you stay.

Term limits feel tantamount to demanding a lawmaking body comprised entirely of amateurs - instead of professional public servants.

The problem is incentives. It should be illegal for lawmakers to receive any money or other in-kind support for their re-election campaign from anyone other than the Federal Election Commission. Everyone who gets more than a few thousand signatures gets the exact same budget.

This way, everyone has the same war-chest, and has to run on their own merits - not on raising capital - and they're measured on their ability to succeed. It also instantly nerfs the allure of lobbying.