This news story sparked my idea for this thread:

After months of speculation about his political future, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg plans to announce on Thursday morning that he will seek a third term as mayor, according to three people who have been told of his plans.

 

The extraordinary move Againstpromises to upend New York City’s political world.

 

Right now, Mr. Bloomberg is barred by law from seeking re-election. But he will propose trying to revise the city’s 15-year-old term limits law, which would otherwise force him and dozens of other elected leaders out of office in 2009, the three people said.

 

So, are you for or against term limits? This can range from local city officials all the way up to the president.

This news story sparked my idea for this thread:

 

 

So, are you for or against term limits? This can range from local city officials all the way up to the president.

That is a tough one for me. I certainly see the point in them, but it could backfire if they are too short, meaning there's just not enough experience to get things done. I guess I will go for them, but make them something like 12-20 years

That is a tough one for me. I certainly see the point in them, but it could backfire if they are too short, meaning there's just not enough experience to get things done. I guess I will go for them, but make them something like 12-20 years

I tend to be in that field too. But i would go one step further and say that after their 12-20 year run, they have to sit out one or two terms then they can run again for another 12-20 years.

Edited September 30, 200817 yr by Athomeboy_2000

Generally against, but it sure was nice to get those bums out of the California Statehouse this past term.

There are term limits already. They're called elections.

There are term limits already. They're called elections.

The problem is, thanks to Gerrymandering and the fundraising advantages of incumbency, even those only go so far these days.

It's not like nobody votes. The truth is, people hate Congress but love their Congressman.

That is a tough one for me. I certainly see the point in them, but it could backfire if they are too short, meaning there's just not enough experience to get things done. I guess I will go for them, but make them something like 12-20 years

 

Yeah I think if they have term limits, it should be longer than the president.

 

Senate maybe 12 years, no more than 18.

 

House maybe 10 years, no more than 14.

Edited September 30, 200817 yr by WilliamTell

National politics should have term limits, local politics should not.

We already have term limits. Our elected officials come up for vote regularly. It should be up to the citizens if they want to keep reelecting an official. I dislike the basic premise of term limits, that voters are too stupid to vote out a bad official.

 

I am generally against any efforts to circumvent voters.

We already have term limits. Our elected officials come up for vote regularly. It should be up to the citizens if they want to keep reelecting an official. I dislike the basic premise of term limits, that voters are too stupid to vote out a bad official.

 

I am generally against any efforts to circumvent voters.

The counter-point is that these elected officials are able to write the laws that make it harder to get them out of office, by moving "troublesome" voters out of their district, making it harder for opponents to qualify for the ballot, making their fundraising advantage, whatever. That's totally legal because they're the same guys writing the laws.

Oh. I completely was thinking about this the wrong way. I thought it meant unlimited length of terms. I don't think there should be term limits on most offices.m However, on things like the President, maybe they can't be in office for more than two terms in a row. However, if they lay off a term, they can run the next one.

The counter-point is that these elected officials are able to write the laws that make it harder to get them out of office, by moving "troublesome" voters out of their district, making it harder for opponents to qualify for the ballot, making their fundraising advantage, whatever. That's totally legal because they're the same guys writing the laws.

 

There is not that much redistricting, but yes it happens. Still, I want to decide who I send to office. Term limits means someone outside my district tells me who I can vote for.

Use Iowa's redistricting laws everywhere, but otherwise term limits are a stupid answer to a problem.

I am 100% in favor of term limits. The re-election rate in this country and the results we get for it, say it all.

What other jobs should have a term limit?

Are there other jobs where the employee gets worse over time or are elected positions the only ones?

 

I fear what happens when we have a bunch of Freshmen leaders running around. No continuity, almost zero experience. I also fear the grab what you can because you will not be responsible again to the voters. Then the real power will reside in senior staffers who stay from official to official. They are never voted on, but they know the ropes and how to get things done.

Bloomberg will definitely get voted back in FWIW. He's very popular over here, and there's nothing like having a billionaire in charge in the current economic crisis.

 

His rationale is he thinks he's the only one who can fix it.