One-Term Limits for All

@Leon Said

This 60 Minutes interview of Jeff Flake showcases the reason why we need to reduce all terms to one and take out re-election politics.

@nooneinparticular Said

Re-election is one of the few ways constituents can hold a public official responsible for their actions. Jeff Flake even highlights this fact. He says he wouldn't have even suggested an FBI investigation if he were running for re-election. Instead of an investigation, consider a Democrat going against abortion or LGBTQ rights. Re-election gives a politician an incentive to do what their constituents want, for good or ill. I think it's the sharp divide between the populace that has made re-election politics and reaching across the aisle so toxic. By removing it we simply treat a symptom, and not the source.

@nooneinparticular Said


Jeff Flake even highlights this fact. He says he wouldn't have even suggested an FBI investigation if he were running for re-election.

@chaski Said

This actually supports the premise of term limits.

@Leon Said

It’s not a perfect or ideal solution, but the most practical, for better or worse, in my opinion. And we need more of that, especially if we want to resolve the radical partisanship you speak of.

@nooneinparticular Said

I'm not really convinced such a move will do much of anything to resolve radical partisanship personally. As long as the public is partisan, they will keep voting in people they think are partisan in their favor. As long as that's the case, we could make term limits 30 days and I think we'd end up in the same situation.

I also end up wondering if we have enough people in the country who want to be politicians where we could even afford to go through them like this to begin with.

@Leon Said

This was not meant to be a solution to radical partisanship. What I WAS saying, and probably should have elaborated a bit more on, was that practical solutions in general are needed in lieu of idealistic tribalism, and my one term limit is an example of this practicalism. As a solution to the problems explained in the OP.

As far as solutions to radical partisanship, I don’t really have an answer right now, as it is a relatively new thing.

Social media has played a large part to it, and we obviously cannot outlaw freedom of speech in that regard.

Another cause is the back and forth between the sides that creates increasing fear and distrust. We need to look no further than the naming of justices to see that. The GOP began obstructing, along with everything else, Obama nominees on the lower courts, which led to the Dems removing the filibuster on lower court nominees. Which led to the filibuster being removed by the GOP for Supreme Court nominees. Then we had the fight over Merrick Garland where the GOP punted into the next term. And this of course led to the contentious fight we see over Kavanaugh, with cries of hypocrisy and threats of impeachment. And so on.

I think it will take several years of this kind of back and forth, until people either say “enough” and vote in a candidate whose platform is forcing compromise, or enables one side completely with enough supermajority power to effectively end it. We simply won’t survive if we have a do nothing Congress beyond a generation.

@a777pilot Said

No term limits of any kind. In fact we, as a country, need to repeal the 22d Amendment.

@mrmhead Said

How about we bring back Pistol Dueling.

It would, in effect, impose a natural term limitation.

I'm sure the NRA would be all for it!

@a777pilot Said

No term limits of any kind. In fact we, as a country, need to repeal the 22d Amendment.