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

I apologize if you felt like I was attacking you directly. After we started this debate, and I heard your interview, I realized that we are coming from two entirely different forms of perceived government. We both have emic perspectives of our own government and America’s government doesn’t work the way you described your own government working. In New Zealand term limits are not absolutely necessary. In Mexico, there is already a one term only policy for the president. Term limits are not entirely universal in their implementation, and in their necessity. However in America, they are necessary and should be implemented. 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 rich 2. 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 class1. The young politician represents the interests of himself not of the people, rich or poor. He is voted on based on popular agreement to his ideals.2. Said politician makes new friends and represents their interests, thus becoming a representative of the ruling class. American congress members are more aligned with their party than they are with the people they represent. The obvious solution to both is to make elected representatives accountable to the people. This isn’t the only solution. The preferred solution is to make the representatives accountable people. The further removed the representatives are from their indigenous people, the less likely they are to act as a person from their home lands and more like a person from the government. A continuous flow of people being chosen from the region ensures that the self interests of the representative are relative to other people in their region. …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. If only it were so easy. The two party structure is in place- forcing the people to vote on new blood to enter congress will increase the likely hood of third parties becoming elected based on preferred interests of time. There is already a recall system in place for the representatives. Have you seen John McCain or Nancy Pelosi? I don’t think their smile has anything to do with it. 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. The Washington times says otherwise. Obama had over 15 million dollars more than Romney and didn’t have to spend any of the money on the primary. http://www.washingtontimes.com... The issue is in fact more general - should a lot of power be invested in a few people for a long time. No! In addition, the USA has a second safeguard against congressional craziness - the constitution. This isn’t a second safeguard, this is the only safe guard. We hold the constitutions and the written law in higher esteem than any political party, regional interest, or religious affiliation. If there isn’t a law preventing an action, it’s legal. If the people want something to happen it has to happen through the law, not through public consensus. Consider gay marriage in Utah, or Identity Laws in Arizona. This is a law driven nation and we continuously reform it through the institution of new laws. In New Zealand we had a prime minister once - Richard Seddon - who ruled the country for well over a decade. We had a president—Franklin D. Roosevelt –that ran our country for well over a decade too; 16 years as a matter of fact. Afterwards, we instated presidential term limits. it is also going to build this narrative that lawmakers legitimately should not care for the people's interests. They legitimately care for their own interests and the interests of their affiliated parties. They are not beholden to the people. Keeping the “best” for longer There are an untold number of people in America that could do the job as good, if not better than the current people in congress. Will we lose a few excellent law makers along the way? Probably, but they aren’t the majority, and it is a small price to pay compared to the current system which allows mediocre law makers to remain in office through complete generational shifts. New ideas are always good, and if an idea is good enough, the new congressman will take up the torch. It should be a relay race, not an individual marathon. If there are excellent congressmen, I’m sure we can find them a nice cushy job in the state legislative houses. Being forced to choose a new representative every 6 years doesn’t necessitate a bad official to be elected. Further Representatives are not agents of the people. They are agents of themselves who are believed to have similar values of the people who vote for them. America highly believes in the individualism. The need for term limits ensures that the new Representatives have recent experiences of the local region they hail from and are not so removed that they forget where they came from. The best congressmen will use their short time in office more forcefully and engage more fully in job. They will have a vested interest in improving the conditions of their region rather than enacting the will of their parties. Thanks Larz. The resolution is affirmed.