(07-11-2022, 05:23 PM)homebiscuit Wrote:

(07-11-2022, 04:20 PM)mikesez Wrote: Elect congress the same time as the president or 2 years later?

Lobbyists are not my concern. They're a part of doing business in Washington. I also don't like term limits because it is thwarting the will of the voter. Most people who want term limits is because they don't like an opposing party's Representative who hangs on. Like Corrine Brown. She's a crook and not very smart, but if her constituents want to keep electing her, that's their problem. If term limits were enacted, most likely another idiot would have just taken her place. Presidential term limits are very recent, but history shows that two terms are about the maximum voters will tolerate. FDR held office in extraordinary times. I have zero doubt Obama, and most likely Reagan, would have won third terms.

My concern is the two-year term for Representatives. It's too short. By the time newly elected reps begin to get their feet under them, they're campaigning for another term. All of them are campaigning too much. Either stagger their elections between Presidential elections or make them three-year terms so it's a rolling turnover but that would create a massive expense for state election commissions. I don't have all the answers, but a two-year term is simply not long enough to be effective, in my opinion.

I think all those concerns are valid.  Term limits do thwart the will of the voters.  But a constitution is not worth much if it doesn't thwart the will of the voters sometimes.  I agree that term limits wouldn't solve a problem like Corrine Brown.  
I agree that highly partisan voices will discuss term limits as getting rid of the senior figures in the other party, but nonpartisans see it more as a question of proportionality and fairness.  An incumbent usually has voters biased towards them with name recognition, and they've had more time to get to know the donors.  A contest between two lesser known newcomers can be more about ideology, and a contest between two well established candidates can be about ideology as well.  But a contest between a well known person and a newcomer is mostly going to be about the incumbent leaning on all of their experiences and accomplishments while the opponent just tears them down, not about ideology at all.  So I think there are still good reasons for term limits even though your arguments are valid and persuasive.
The other reason I'm starting to find term limits attractive is how they can lead good and effective officials up a ladder so to speak.  Move up or move out, it becomes like a cursus honorum as the Romans had it.
But the main reason is because I think there are many other things about how we elect people that desperately need to be updated, and you can't dip your toe in the circles that discuss constitutional  amendments without running into 2 or 3 people that are for term limits for every 1 person that wants to discuss something else. I think there is very little chance our constitution will be amended ever again absent severe local disruption of law and order, but, if there is any chance at all, a cause like term limits could catalyze many beneficial amendments.
I'm not sure if I agree with you about two years being too short.  I think our current demented and obsessed media makes it a permanent campaign regardless of how far away the next election is.  The only way to get an official to focus on doing their job instead of campaigning is to remove the possibility of campaigning, as I see it.  But you can't go all the way with that, the way Mexico does, because if none of them ever have to face the people again, perhaps none of them will see any reason to do anything useful at all.

---