Randomize

I see both sides of this argument.

It is clear that when our representatives stay too long, they lose the ability to govern and only retain the ability to campaign. Hence the lack of leadership, collaboration, and discourse, all of which tend to piss off just enough voters to put them in the 49% of a 49/51 split the next time around. Term limits give us fresh eyes to problems and fresh hearts to their district, and lame ducks can make the tough decisions without worrying about jeopardizing their “career.”

But on the other hand, federal laws and budgets are intricate, detailed, and complicated. And they are that way for a reason– like computer code, nuance and edge cases have to be worked around in the law, terms defined, etc. Tea party activists like to complain about the length of the current healthcare bill, for instance, but they simply don’t realize the amount of care and thought must go into changing laws so they are consistent, fair, and not full of legal loopholes and ambiguity. Being able to create good laws is a learning process, and it takes years to develop. Like the federal government in general, seasoned lawmakers aren’t necessarily our enemy, they simply are out of touch.

I fear simple term limits would have chew up and spit out our best representatives almost as quickly as our worst ones, and possibly before they have a chance to ever get “good” at the job. We throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Instead, I’d love to see consecutive term limits of, say, three terms for the House (6 years), and two terms (12 years) for the Senate. After their limit, they would be required to move back to their district and live there for another two terms before running again.

They would not be allowed to simply switch from the House to the Senate and back again, nor would they be permitted to be registered as lobbyists or as federal employees or contractors during the intervening terms. They could run for 3 House terms and then 1 Senate term (still a total of 12 consecutive years), but not one Senate term and then one House term (since the House, being the “people’s house,” should come from the people, not straight from 6 years in from Washington).

I’m somewhat flexible on the number of terms. Maybe 2 and 1 respectively. It’s all about finding that sweet spot of effective, experienced representation.

I feel this would provide the ability for us to send back people who have experience and have proven they represent us well, while also combating the problem of legislators losing touch with their constituency, drinking too much Washington Kool-Aide, and always being forced to be in “campaign mode.”