Term Limits for the Federal Government

If you don't like the idea of a politician throwing their pork into a corrupt bill, maybe that shows that the rules of Congress need to be changed, not term limits. According to your infinite probability theorem, the opposite should be true as well- the longer a politician is in office, the better the chance of him/her straightening their act out is. Harry Reid may be respected, but its not necessarily because he has been in Congress so long. Maybe its because he is the leader of his party and is a member of the Democratic Party. Reid does not get the same respect from Republicans. That holds true for both parties. A freshman Congressperson gets the same respect from the other side of the aisle as a more senior member. PERKS The cycle that you claim is difficult to break is actually very easy to break. A politician running for re-election does not get any bonus votes, or the opportunity to campaign more than his opponent. He has no unequal advantages. A vote cast for a senior politician seeking re-election is just as equal to a vote cast for a rookie running for the first time. The problem with your order is the part that says that "promises are broken." If a re-election promise is broken, why are the voters electing the lieing politician? If they continue to re-elect a known campaign liar, it is their own fault. This is the easiest jab that a candidate can throw towards an opponent seeking re-election. Promises go on the record, and its easy to show that they are broken. ACCOUNTABILITY People will run, not because it is their civic duty, but more as a mercenary. You see, when a politician wants to become a career politician because of the perks you pointed out, they do need to get SOME work done for their constituents, that their constituents want and doesn't look completely corrupt. If they don't, they make it easier for future opponents to get them voted out. On the other hand, if a politician knows that their time is short no matter what they do, they can come in, push through legislation that might have good short-term effects, but devestating long term effects, and it won't matter to them, because whether they're good, bad, corrupt, or angelic, they get fired at the end of their term limit no matter what. You claim that my whole argument falsely states that limited time in office increases irresponsibility, yet you don't say how I'm wrong- you merely state that I'm wrong. Think of it this way- if you're told that you can spend one week on a tropical paradise, you will make the best of it. You'll drink, and play, and party like there is no tomorrow before you have to leave. If on the other hand you are told that you'll be living there for the long term, you're going to look to make the best of your situation and the environment around you. You aren't going to corrupt it and make it a place of ill repute. You may be correct about people wanting term limits, but that is because most people don't really know what they truely want when it comes to politics. Ask your ordinary Bush hater why they hate Bush. They don't know. Ask any Obama lover why they love Obama. They don't know. Ask any ordinary citizen to name the 3 branches of government- I bet they don't know. So asking them if they want term limits is to ask essentially an ambiguous question to an uninformed opiner. Might as well ask a resident of New York City how good it is to live in La Jolla, California. Sure, you might get somebody who has been to La Jolla, but for the most part they're just going to be guessing, or they'll make an assumption that La Jolla is either better or worse, based on solely their own experience of living in NYC. Sure, somebody who hates NYC might look at La Jolla and say "gee, its warm there! Its gotta be better than NYC!" And the pollster could then place a check mark in the 'La Jolla is better than NYC' column. But that doesn't necessarily reflect any type of educated opinion. I have no problem with giving people the right to make the choice for term limits. We live in a society where the people have a government, not the other way around. But instituting term limits places an arbitrary restriction on the people's ability to govern themselves. Keeping it open to the will of the people leaves it open to allow the people to govern how they feel is appropriate at that time.