There should be term limits for U.S. Congress members.

I'm going to ask that people come to this debate without preconceptions. Particularly if you are AmericanSolving the Right ProblemMy opponent has started out as any good debater should - attacking my personal background and experience with US politics (having debated on this site for a long time gives me a great understanding actually). Despite the US context my opponent has chosen to set the debate in, the issue of term limits is universal. The question is simply whether it's a good idea to allow the people to trust one person with too much power for too long.The problem my opponent has presented, however, is far simpler. Here's how he thinks American politics works:1. Hopeful young politician gets effectively sponsored to get elected, only representing the interests of the rich2. Said politician stops even representing the interests of the rich after he makes new friends in Washington DC, and thus assert themselves as a ruling classSuppose we add term limits to this equation. What changes? There will be new rich folks to replace the old ones, and even if they don't become as entrenched in the Washington DC culture, they were never standing for the interests of the people in the first place. The problem that my opponent is trying to solve is something between plutocracy and the development of a ruling class. The obvious solution to both is to make elected representatives accountable to the people. What my opponent has not proven is why term limits will increase accountability to the people.This is particularly the case when I could think of many simple ways to overcome this problem much more directly - for example, limiting campaign financing, the dismantlement of the two-party structure, holding politicians legally as well as electorally accountable for false campaign promises, and not simply voting for the guy with the flashiest advertising or nicest smile.I generally agree that elected representatives ought to be accountable to the people, but you know, that's what elections are for. They are the accountability mechanism inherent in a system called democracy, which to an extent so happens to be the political system of the united states. Ultimately people are not elected on the basis of who has the most cash, but who gets the most votes. In the last election, Mitt Romney spent more money than Barack Obama. And you know, a lot of people actually supported the president's policies. The problem is simply not problematic - if you want to see an accountability problem, travel to west africa. In the USA leaders actually have to answer for their actions.But this kind of accountability is not the problem that term limits solves. The issue is in fact more general - should a lot of power be invested in a few people for a long time.Blame YourselvesAs I alluded to earlier, the USA is a democracy. There are frequent elections. If the people don't like how one guy is performing, they are free to elect somebody else. And the system is fair in that whoever gets the most votes wins. It might not be a majority, but it's the best consensus there is.In addition, the USA has a second safeguard against congressional craziness - the constitution. This lays out that you can't reform America into a national socialist state, for example, no matter how much congress wants to. You CANNOT change America's system of free, fair and frequent elections, no matter how much you hate democracy.Government by the people means trusting the people with making the right decisions, and the people placing trust in those they elect to government. Term limits, however, are based on the government distrusting the people, saying that they do not believe in the people's wisdom to make good choices about who they elect. This plays in to the very problem pro wants to avoid.Without term limits the risk and rewards of voting a certain way lie with the people. In New Zealand we had a prime minister once - Richard Seddon - who ruled the country for well over a decade. Today he is viewed as a national hero, one of the best that we ever had. We elected him because he was actually the best person to run the country for all that time, totally caring for the interests of the people. He held office until he died.Now of course, he was an exception. But when there were leaders who did not represent the interests of the people we voted them out. Term limits are best imposed on the basis of how good a leader people perceive congresspeople to be, and that's exactly what elections are for.But consider the alternative, where congress enacts a bill saying that people can't decide for themselves when to limit their terms, and that they should be allowed to decide for them. That only supports the view that the people should be accountable to congress, as opposed to congress being accountable to the people. Not only is that - in my view - completely contrary to the principles of the constitution - it is also going to build this narrative that lawmakers legitimately should not care for the people's interests. First of all because their terms are short anyway, so what does it matter if in their last term they screw over the people? And second, because this fundamental piece of electoral law effectively states that the people are all stupid anyway.Keeping the best for longerSuppose Barack Obama organizes a 12-year initiative that will help America massively when it is completed, but is costly until then. Thanks to term limits, you can bet that some politician between now and then will campaign on a platform of getting rid of that program.The exact same thing happens in congress. Lawmakers push a major policy and need to stay in office to defend that policy until it is finished. If the people support it, they will keep electing the politician and keep his ideas fresh on capitol hill. If they don't, then the idea will flounder as the member is un-elected anyway. Sometimes having new ideas in government is good, but other times, having long-term visions and experience is also good.the thing about term limits is that they're a hard limit, totally inflexible (though in the US the presidential term limit has been relaxed a few times, that only goes to show how pointless that law is). When that kind of an inflexible restriction is imposed on something as fluid as politics, it's no wonder bad people get elected, because good politicians - the ones that won't get corrupted - are few and far between. And they're only allowed to stay in office for so long under term limits before a bad one must be elected.I wish my opponent all the best for the next round. The resolution is negated.