Yes! But absolute rule is not our only problem. Campaign structures, money, bribes....

I don't think term limits woudl chang emuch in congress or hte senate. If you want to change things, go about changing how campaigns are financed so the rich and special interests dont' have undue influence, and outlaw Gerrymandering.

I have no problems with special interests lobbying congress, but I do have a problem with their offerign contributions to influence their decisions. If a special interest cant' makie their case simply by the merits of the issue or act alone, then it probably shoudl not be done.

Gerrymandering lets politicans shoose who will be votign for them rather than letting voters choose who will represent them.

The two problems I mention here, if solved, woudl remove most problems with politicians and government... at lest for a while.

This is a question that should be asked to the Chinese and North Koreans.

If people could make educated decisions about who they vote for, it would not be needed. Also, it would not be an issue if we either got rid of the Electoral College or change the way those who are the delegates are chosen. The problem is that the American Voter is amazingly stupid and gullible. Also, the process we use to select Delegates is primed gir corruption. So, Yes! Though it would be a very poor way to try to alleviate some of the problems, it would be quick and relatively easy to institute.

Yes. No more than 8 years in the House, 18 years in the Senate, and 20 years as a Supreme Counrt justice. As Thomas Jerrson said, the earth should belong to the leving -- not the dead.

YES!!!!! LIKE... YESTERDAY!!!!!!

This is a double edged sword:

Without term limits we have experts who know the system and can accomplish the goal of running the government with efficiency. These experts teach newcomers about the system and create new experts. That is the 'pro' side of this argument. The 'con' side is that we end up with people who are, at least potentially, out of date and out of touch with the needs of their constituents for spending too much time removed from them in DC surrounded by folks who have their own sets of interests and goals. Which may, or may not, align with the needs of their constituents and may, or may not, line their pockets. Being experts, they will know which are legal, and which are not, and how to 'work the system' for best effect of whatever the current goal is, nefarious or otherwise.

With term limits you put a cap on how 'expert' someone can become (there is a way around this, a hybrid system) at running the government so you almost guarantee that the functioning will be less efficient. Further, there is no guarantee that these newcomers are aligned with their constituents and are not here just to figure out how to suck up as much funding as posible. They will not, however, be experts and may well cross legal lines. This may well mean that outside interests gain leverage on them so that they can have MORE influence to have them vote their way, rather than just exposing them and making it so that we can oust them for being bad and breaking the rules. That said, most of them will likely be caught readily and we can then get rid of them. Those are cons. The pros are that they will be fresh and much more likely to be aligned with "now" if not their consituents. This has the effect of creating rapid change (or at least more rapid) in how our government is structured and run... another double edged sword mind. If these newcomers are well and truly in tune with their constituents this can be a good thing. Also if they are here to discuss and debate the issues rather than just force their own interests through at all costs.

Now, my 'hybrid' idea is that no sitting, eledcted, government official can 'sit' in their position for more than 4 years. At which time they are required to step down. However, with noteable exceptions, they can pursue a different governmental office after a hiatus of no less than 2 years time during which they MUST be back in their district researching the needs of said district. We could, for example, pay them a stipend and they would be required to produce a study of their constituents needs thus informing the government of what is needed across the country (yeah, bigger government, I know but a much more informed government). Why? This way we guarantee that they KNOW their constituents and their constituents needs and further are armed to come back after their hiatus and serve, again, possibly in the same capacity. The idea here is that no one serving in the government can get too insulated, too crystalized, into their position and thus lose contact with what is really needed in their districts and what is possible in same. Force them to go back and relearn what is going on, reexperience it would be even better. I like the idea of some form of product/work being required to show that they really were doing what they were supposed to and that we all become more informed of what things are like out here. Worse, if a person from a truly poor/red district saw how their constituents were living, maybe they'd be moved to work for their common good, rather than for the good of the constituents, rather than only for the good of the sitting government officiel.

Note: I have NO problems with making a profit at what you do. I have a problem with NOT doing your job and getting away with enriching yourself while "binding the serfs back to the land" to do so. THIS is what I am seeing, and so very ashamed by, today.

No way, we should terming more than are now without the pardons.

Yes!!! Two two year terms, then get out!

No more than 1 year or 30 days, whatever it is they do.

Absolutely. I think of Thurmond, McCain, Helms, Conyers and their ilk and it makes me nauseated. The Supreme Court Justices, I think a competency test of some sort should apply to their tenure. Some kind of C.E.Us or community service. I don't think term limits would be a good thing in their case. I think that any type of ageism discrimination would be counterproductive.

Yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

I believe two terms for senators and three for representatives is enough because I feel that we should have a conscious flow of new ideas in our government that relates to the changing times. As for the Supreme Court I again feel a retirement age of 72 is more than enough time to serve.These justices that are older than this loose tract of the changes in the populations opinions regarding the law that occurs. For example the death penalty verse life in prison, the current view on weed, abortion being attacked. The same should be the policy for state government. I am also tired of these politicians making a career of the positions and passing different laws for themselves verses the people they serve. Example healthcare for the Congress vs the rest of population.