Term Limits should be abolished

Well, first off (to satisfy my curiosity) why exactly did you challenge me? Did you just see we disagreed on this? Or was it another reason? Well, I'll go ahead and respond broadly, but are you against term limits in general? Or against specific ones? Well I'll respond to the general idea. Your Arguments: 1. If there is a good leader, than why force him out? 2. Undemocratic 3. Enough checks and balances that term limits are unnecessary My Responses: 1. Well your first point operates on the assumption that the leader is good. I'll respond to that situation first. In order to answer that, I would like to take a look at how, historically; great leaders have handled this situation. Some, like George Washington, just retired. Others, like the fabled Great Triumvirate (Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John Calhoun) just juggled offices. I think that a good leader shouldn't be forced from office, but rather forced to move to different jobs. This is because of several things. However, I believe the former Congressman John Taylor said it best with: "More talent is lost by long continuance in office than by rotation because ability is stimulated by the prospect of future employment and smothered by the monopoly of experience." Simply put, staying in the same office for a while stifles the talent of a leader and leads to stagnation of ability. The leader should switch from office to office if he is good, and has a career in politics (which is a different matter). However, your point assumes that the leader is good. What if he is bad? Well, you may argue that he wouldn't get re-elected. However (and I won't point fingers), there have been several high-prestige jobs that, because there was lack of serious competition, a bad leader got re-elected. Added to that, incumbents have a humongous advantage over new comers. Incumbency increases a representative's expected vote share by 11 percent (http://www.cato.org...). Also an intertwined point is that seniority is power, and if one Senator is elected over and over, he gets a serious advantage over new runners, regardless of whether he is good or not. If a bad incumbent could get re-elected easily, than term limits are very necessary in order to promote the cream of the crop. Moreover, term limits actually increase voter choice by making elections more competitive and encouraging more candidates to run. One study estimates that California's term limits on state legislators caused a rush of retirements, which led to 50 percent more candidates than would otherwise have been expected. This makes it that much more feasible for a day when there will only be the best of the best in office. 2. - There are term limits on executives, of course the President of the United States. Age, citizenship status, and criminal record requirements on many elected positions. Restricting voter choice has always been a part of American democracy. Most importantly though, is the fact that term limits are so popular among voters. Many states have term limits, and if the people themselves are in favor of limiting their own choices to candidates who have not served more than a given number of years, how can that be undemocratic? America as a whole has a history of limiting the amount of candidates who can run, and as the study above suggests, more people run BECAUSE of term limits. 3. - Well, you might think that there are enough checks and balances that term limits are unnecessary. However, when have we ever had a corrupt official trying to keep him in power despite limits? Never, to my knowledge. This means that it isn't that there may or may not be enough checks and balances, and wouldn't it be great just to have term limits as a safety net, protecting us from a corrupt and inept government? You said: "Why fix what isn't broken", and I agree. America has been stable for 200 years and change. We've had term limits (whether formal or informal) for nearly all 200 of them. What has been the negative impact of them? We have been governed pretty well, so why try to fix something that isn't broken? My Arguments: 1. Term limits stop politicians from merely making decisions that would prolong their career. Say there was a bill that, in the long term was awful, but short-term was great. With term-limits, the official wouldn't be thinking about getting re-elected, and would do whatever is best for the people he represents. Without term-limits, he does what gets him elected. I'm sure I can write others, however I have things to do. I'll get back to them next round. Looking forward to the next round.