Term limits are completely against what democracy stands for

'MONOPOLY'People traditionally vote for the incumbent, that is true. However, it is not an absolute constant. If a leading government official has been in office for some time and they have failed to stop or, contributed to, issues such as rising unemployment and declining GDP, among other things, the public takes notice. For an example, I will point to the Obama Administration in America. President Barack Obama has presided over the nation since 2009, and was re-elected in 2012, defeating challenger Mitt Romney. This would seem to show that people are more likely to vote for incumbent officials, which is the case in some occurrences. However regardless of whether you support President Obama or not, his administration has been increasingly controversial, and its popularity has fallen considerably since his first day in office. As a matter of fact, it has been found in several nationwide polls that if the 2012 election were held in the past one and a half years, Mitt Romney would defeat the incumbent President by a landslide. Why? That would be because a majority of the public have become increasingly dissatisfied with his administration and his actions, with disapproval of him on the rise, even some who voted for him in the past are experiencing a sort of "buyers' remorse". It can be inferred from such data that even if there were no term limits and President Obama ran for a third term he would most likely not be re-elected. So basically, what I mean to say is, if a national leader is making choices considered to be poor or hazardous, even without term limits, they are likely to lose that office. If a leader is making good choices, or choices that are considered/proven to be beneficial, then he or she should have every right to retain office if so chosen by the public to do so. Fresh ideas are not necessarily good ideas, what matters in democracy and overall is not if ideas are fresh, but whether they are good and beneficial.An incumbent might have more connections than a challenger, that is a possibility. However that ignores another possibility that a challenger may have also held other positions, campaigned in other elections, and established connections that may even more than match that of the incumbent. They also have a potential boost in their track record and that of the incumbent, it isn't as impossible as your wording suggests.The reality is that in the end, democracy prevails. If a man is a bad leader, it may take time, but it shall be seen, and he shall be removed by the people. If a man is a good leader, he has every right to continue to hold the office he was elected for if the people do so give him their vote. Why should a popular, effective leader be forced to leave office, upon which he may be replaced with other candidates that could be even worse? Why force the public to select from the best of evil? To deny the people the right to elect a leader if they so believe him fit for office, and to deny a just leader the right to hold office if the public so sees him fit, is truly anti-democratic. 'CAREER POLITICIANS'You are telling me that the government isn't passing legislation, and is instead constantly focusing on being elected? How curious, yet if I check around, there were over 8 bills made into law on the day of December 19 2014 alone. 8 bills in one, single, day. I'm confused, I thought they were busy slandering eachother constantly? Regardless of that, let's focus on your intention of this statement here. Look, legislating is a very complicated process, at times it can be rather difficult to get things passed. You can't expect them to be one hundred percent effective every term , it's unrealistic. Consider the state of congress after 2012, you had a House with a thin majority of Republicans, and a Democrat dominated Senate. With a layout like that, of course you'll see some gridlock and inactivity. Hell even members of each party respectively don't always agree with their 'allies'. For example, in the GOP you have the establishment Republicans such as John Boehner and Mitt Romney, then there's conservative firebrands like Ted Cruz. In 2013 Ted Cruz went on that filibuster which helped lead the the shutdown, do you judge him for not getting anything done when he can't get any support? Or if you support the Democrats, do you judge them for not pursuing active legislation because of their conflicts with the GOP also contributed to the shutdown? Well, let me restate what I said earleir. Legislating is a very complicated process, you can't expect yourself to get everything done in a few terms. It takes a long time to work towards a goal, which is one reason why term limits would only cause problems. Their talking points are to get a message out, yes part of it is to support them for re election and whatnot. Debating is a core facet of democracy as well, each issue was meant to be debated and drawn out so that the best achievable outcome by the legislative could be achieved. It also enables voters to hear the stances of party members and legislators and consider things(such as: which of these parties is more in tune with my interests/ideals? which candidate fits my idea for a better America more closely? Who can I trust with the future of my nation?). However they also are urging the public to consider that their vote will help to shape the future of the country, and they want them to vote for their side. Why is that? Well that would be because they need support from their side to get things done, so really if legislators are to actually work as you say they don't, they need that support from their party to get their goals accomplished. So it would only make logical sense for them to attempt to futher their support as well as the support of those who would assist in accomplishing their goals. If term limits were introduced for congress, well you could expect an absolutely unstable mess I assure you. Things would grow incredibly inconsistent, which would hurt, not help, legislation. It would also still be against democracy, as it is a needless limit on the right to choose who you believe should lead the future, and to be the leader of the future if you are so chosen by the public. To be frank, if term limits for congress were implemented, legislators will not have the time to accomplish what they were elected to. The old representatives would be suddenly replaced with a batch of new fresh fraced idealists who may be inexperienced, and could also contribute to gridlock. On the negative side, in a final term of office, the representatives would not be concerned with public approval. This means there would be no reason for them to hold back on doing things the public would not approve of, and they would attempt to do so. Why not? They don't need to be re elected, so they'd go all in. Which in the end could lead to us being on the short end of the stick. The desire to remain within public approval so as to be re elected is an incentive to work towards the public interest. Which in turn is actually pro-democracy, as it furthers the interest of the people.Well that's a very interesting scenario of the President you got there, however none of that would ever happen. It's all unconstitutional, and it takes effort nationwide across state governments and congress to amend the constitution, and for the scenario you gave to even happen would take several amendments. Basically, it will never happen, so your scenario is invalidated.If a leader ruins the nation truly, the people will grow to see it. Even in nations like North Korea where a dictatorship is in place, the amount of people who want to end the tyranny grows. The only real thing stopping them is the belief that he is a god. Here, we elect our leaders, so we can stop them if we wish, with more ease. By the way, 300 million people does not mean 300 million politically educated people.http://www.washingtonpost.com...;