Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Ed wrote:
>
>> With a better educated electorate, no term limits would be needed.
>
> We might not see eye-to-eye on every political issue, but I am 100% in
> agreement with that.

Unfortunately it isn't that easy.

New representatives are at a disadvantage for lack of cultural
knowledge. In exchange they are less beholden to the political machine.
Experienced representatives are at an advantage for having cultural
knowledge of the legislative processes. In exchange they are more
beholden to the politcal machine. It's an optimization process that has
never worked well.

California passed term limits. Let's review what happened there.

The initial result was moving a lot of entrenched politicians from the
State Assembly and State Senate into the county and city governments
where there are no term limits. it worked for a while at the state
level at the expense of the county and city levels. They should have
made the term limits apply at the state level on down I figure.

The longer term result was a steady influx of newer inexperienced
representatives. Too many of them have been at the mercy of very
experienced and savvy lobbiests.

The US system is based on a winner-take-all approach. It entrenches the
large parties who talk one way act another. it entrenches lobbiests to
"educate" aka steer representatives. Repeating terms give too much
power to the political machines of the parties. Non-repeating terms
give too much power to the lobbiests who are often former
representatives who valued partisan stances or personal gain more than
taking care of their constituents.

Reforming the US system to proportional representation of some sort is
not going to happen in the short term but I suggest it's the better
approach than term limits at the federal level.

Even knowing the California result, do I favor Congressional term
limits? Yes but I'm aware it's a limited step down a path to repairing
broken aspects of the system.