Lobbying is more of an issue imo. Any other civilized country just calls it bribery and political corruption... but it's ok here in the US because we call it something different. Term limits make it harder for these same groups to find a bribery loophole to pay off these politicians because of the revolving door. Can we maintain governmental competence with that revolving door is my dilemma.
Weird. I just watched a video about term limits and never once heard the phrase 'lame duck'. The problem, as you say, is not career politicians that do a good job, but any politicians who make a career through corruption even if that is a short career. The goal is politicians who are scared of voters, and a lame duck who cannot be re-elected at all is even less scared of voters than a well-connected and well financed one that has a whole career of facing the voters. Limits, age or term, create more lame ducks. Yes, money out of politics. Yes, age limits on appointees. Also, ranked choice voting. Also, multi-winner congressional districts. Also, national holiday for vote. Also, national popular vote for president. Also, transparency and ethics accountability for justices. Also, increased staffing and budget for congressional research and reporting and ethics investigation.
Not just term limits, but AGE LIMITS as well. Age 60 and out. If you feel the burning desire to continue working, then go to work for PRIVATE INDUSTRY, but get the fuck out of politics/government.
It's a huge problem with so many of our officials being over retirement age. Education? Doesn't matter, they're done and their kids are done. Reproductive rights? Doesn't matter, they're well beyond their reproductive years. Climate change? Who cares, many of them won't be around in 20 years.
@@goldmandrummer yes but the current political system only gives credence to decrepit goons rather than people who are directly invested in the near future.
Its not just about whether their age hinders them or not. We've got folks between the ages of 60 and 90 years old making decisions for us and our children and their children and their children with consequences they will not have to suffer through.
@boristheamerican2938 the average age of the Senate is 64. On average these people are a year from retirement. That doesn't reflect America as a whole.
They won't do that, though. These politicians are popular in their states. Or at least enough counties for them to keep power. The problem is A: Americans are politically ignorant and often vote against their self interest. B: Our electoral system is fraught with gerrymandering and other corruptions. C: Our candidates are often weak.
@@DoremiFasolatido1979 Maybe go find the right specialization of Lawyer and ask them how instead of a random commenter who knows the general direction to take.
We need a world wide constitutional movement to amend all countries constitutions to directly state that corporations are not people and only have the rights given by statute.
@@Landricities What general direction to take? At best, they suggested that there WAS a direction. In no way did they point out where the direction is. It's like if I said, "North exists." Yeah...but which way is North? After that...to continue the comparison...a legal expert could then describe the specifics of following that direction to some hypothetical destination.
@@DoremiFasolatido1979 cool you pointed out my semantics were imprecise, still probably shouldn't ask for specifics from a random commenter in a TH-cam section rather than someone with verified credentials.
Isn't it kind of a coincidence, that it's usually professions of power (senators, judges, CEO's, etc. etc.) that never want to retire. Most people look forward to the day when they can quit working and spend their times doing things they love. Power is addictive, and these people are all addicts. That is why they can't quit. If they quit, they die, similar to that of people that are long gone into heavy opioid addiction.
🎯 Truer words have never been said! I said that while we were having problems with Dianne. Imagine where anybody coming through your door or on the phone wants to only speak to you! All those lobbyists clamoring to get you to agree to their grift. All the money from different corporations & greedy CEOs want only to speak to you! Money & power is a drug. Why can't more of us see that?
It's not only about political power. Retiring also mean the ending of inflence, the ending of importance, the ending of Respect. This applies to most proffesions. After retiring, nobody needs you, almost nobody wants your advice.
Hey Leeja, political science student at Rice University here. I love your work and am constantly impressed by the breadth of topics you cover, fantastic production quality and consistency of your episodes. Keep up the amazing work!! Respectfully, however, this is the first video you’ve made that I disagree with completely and I figured I’d make the “pro term limits case” stronger for the comment section. You make an excellent pragmatic case for why term limits are unlikely to become a feature of American government any time soon but I find the core theoretical arguments against ever implementing term limits fairly weak. That politicians need institutional knowledge requiring they stay in government for decades, somehow are less likely to pass through the revolving door to move into lobbying if term unlimited, would never logically term limit themselves and that it’s hard to amend the constitution do not strike me as good enough reasons to oppose term limits on principle. Why don’t we push for all of it? Nationally implement ranked choice voting. Leave district border creation to independent commissions and mandate political boundaries be contiguous and regularly shaped to fight gerrymandering. Abolish the electoral college. No corporate money in politics. Publicly finance elections. Close lobbying loopholes. No politicians in government over the age of 75. Term limit senators after 3 terms. Term limit house members after 9 terms. Term limit SC justices every 18 years. In my ideal term limited world, everyone in government gets 18 years to make change and the president gets half that time because of their outsized constitutional influence. It’s often cited that Jefferson thought Americans should rewrite the entire constitution every 19 years..and yeah! It makes sense! It’s the length of a generation. Democracy needs institutional knowledge and a certain level of consistency but it also needs turnover and the maintenance of healthy competition. For this reason term limits resist the label “undemocratic”; they are, on the contrary, extremely democratic. They, in concert with other reforms, reduce barriers to entry in political markets and are the only way to effectively check incumbency advantage which is inherently undemocratic. Left unchecked, a successful representative can monopolize control of the entire electoral apparatus of a district…effectively barring challengers until the retirement or death of that representative. I’m thinking you probably read the Heritage Foundation’s pro term limit argument and thought “yikes, gotta make a video about the downsides of term limits” and valid: the HF is scary and wrong all the time. However….this issue goes beyond partisanship as evidenced by polling on the matter. P.S While we’re idealizing democracy let’s go further: how about making the senate proportional and adding Puerto Rico and DC as states…bit of a pipe dream maybe but fair representation calls for it.
Hi Riley, First, I want to say that I'm replying to your comment because on some level, I agree more with you than most of the other comments I've seen so far. Nevertheless, my disagreements with the video go much deeper, although I will abstain from a point-by-point critique because almost all of this is pointless. The list of reforms you suggest should be pursued will never be passed unless they are written so as to advantage the capitalist class. However, the key issue I did want to clarify for you is that the Senate can never be made proportional. Article V of the constitution specifies that even via constitutional amendment "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." So, any amendment aiming to do that would have to be ratified not by 3/4 of the states, but would need to be 100% unanimous. In closing, I'll just add that if you want to "idealize" democracy, you must transcend the notion of elections, which are inherently undemocratic even with term limits, proportionality, ranked choice or approval voting, campaign finance reforms, etc. To vest political power in the people, officials must be selected by lot, offices of unitary authority must be eliminated, and democracy must extend into economic production, distribution, and appropriation of the prosperity therefrom (that is, only a socialist economy is compatible with democracy). Of course, these things as well (or I should say, especially) will never be allowed by the ruling class without a fight.
@@sazhaxeramezha449 To be fair, I did say making the senate proportionally representative was a pipe dream. And, to that end, so are most of the reforms I mentioned...though they have better shots at making our polyarchy (to borrow Dahl's term) a bit more responsive with enough time, money, and advocacy efforts. As for the political theory stuff: I agree with you on principle. Elections are undemocratic compared with "pure" democracy. Elections are the foundational methodology of republicanism after all. Random lot for representatives would certainly be an... interesting...system. The only immediate problems I foresee are the matters of personal commitments and people's aptitude for government. Some people would much rather take care of their kids or work some other job than take on being a political representative. Now one could argue that anyone has the capacity to govern with a strong understanding of civics which draws on their own experiences and unique education. However, one could just as easily argue that the random person who becomes a representative would use the position to act in their own interests even more than do our current representatives. All of that talk is, of course, for a different conversation. Eliminating offices of unitary authority sounds good to me, though one must concede that (occasionally) groups of people need to have someone to turn to to make a quick decision on their behalf as a matter of pragmatism...say to respond to an immediate threat. Ideally we would live in a world where war, disease, human-threatening unknowns, etc did not exist but the world is a complex place...can't exactly vote on "what's going to be our official response to this coastal invasion happening right now," for example. 100% behind workplace democracy. I'm also in a place in my studies where, theoretically at least, I'm in favor of its logical extreme: a world of worker owned cooperatives...or some other form of syndicalism. Not sure about the last point you raise...fighting the ruling class that is. Regardless of what we all do, I think capitalism is going to collapse under its own weight. Increasingly costly environmental externalities and financialization - which I'm using here to mean the artificial disconnection of labor from its value - are gonna tank it. What will rise from its ashes will be either some form of techno-feudalism (as Varoufakis writes) or, maybe something a bit more socialist and positive. In the optimistic future I like to envision, that world looks like self-sufficient, associational, solar-punk, anarchist communities (ideologically I'm not a big fan of state socialism or states in general). But if making the senate proportional is pipe dream...imagining a world like that involves a significantly heavier trip.
Not a Yank here, but I studied political science in college and had a paper on American politics. I just want to say I wish I had the kind of enthusiasm and optimism you have when it comes to making any changes in that particular system. As an outsider, i view American politics as a reality tv show, because it's not *my* tax dollars going down the drain. Passing any kind of reform in that system seems next to impossible. Even something that is relatively long overdue - the statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, or the passage of the ERA, is dead on arrival. It just seems unlikely that anyone is going to try to move the needle even a little bit on these wedge issues.
Ending congressional gerrymandering would also go a long way towards easing the problems caused by aging lawmakers. It could raise the bar for winning reelection and keep a number of unworthy politicians out of office. I feel like it would reduce terms more naturally.
Gerrymandering is a huge problem. It lets politicians pick their voters and not let the voters choose the politicians who represent them. This is why I propose to double or triple the size of the US House. I also propose that a law be passed to require the districts for the House have 6, 7, or 8 Reps. unless the state has 5 or less Reps. That is 6 or 7 OR 7 or 8. The voters would be able to split their allowed votes between as many candidates as they wish, by just voting for more than 1. The allowed number of votes per voter can be 1 or it could be 4 or as many as the number of Reps. for that district (it doesn't matter much at all). Machines would count the votes and assign the fractional votes to the candidates that were voted for. The candidates who got the largest total number of votes would win and be seated in the House. , , , The benefits of this are => it makes gerrymandering pretty much useless. It would let voters vote for just one, so minor parties can win seats in the House. It should disadvantage extreme candidates because voters can vote for someone else of the same party. It means that voters will almost always have a Rep. from their party in the House to contact about what they want done for them. It means that far fewer voters will not have a Rep. of their party in the House who represents them, including those in minor parties. It also dilutes the weight in the Electoral College of small states from their 2 Senators. . . . Disadvantages are => It makes the voters not have just 1 Rep. who represents them. It means that the delegation for each district includes Reps. from more than 1 party.
@@stevefitt9538 I would support you however there is a reason why they stopped increasing the size of the US House. The Capitol can't fit anymore representatives.
Private funding of elections is a much bigger issue IMo, as it allows moneyed interests to pre-select candidates prior to elections so constituents choose whomever is good for the money either way.
I'd like to see them do it while living in the same tax bracket as they did back then. They like to talk about growing up in humble backgrounds but those humble backgrounds won't even pay for State. Tuition might be affordable but but classes and books can cause you to take out a second mortgage
We have term limits in Missouri in 2016 it almost broke our legislature because a bunch of our civil servants had also been fired or quit. It took an entire session for people to figure out how to do their jobs and the years since have been a mess (for a lot of reasons) but this is definitely one of them. I could never support term limits because I've seen how bad it can get if too many people are termed out at the same time.
@YourCapybaraAmigo_17yrsago how exactly would that work? Which of the 163 reps would retire and when? Also, would some legislators get extra time or what? This is an incredibly dumb statement.
@@spinninglovelies314 not at all. Set up three different groups, groups A, B, and C. Set them to term out 2-4 years apart from each other. Choose a starting date. Decide how many terms and what length is allowed. Clock starts right away for Group A, two years later for Group B, and four years later for Group C. From that moment on everything's staggered. That's one way to do it.
Term limits isn’t the issue plaguing our fair representation in Congress… It’s the fact that there’s not enough members for fair representation. We can’t have 1 person represent 800k people.
Thank you for pointing this out because it is so freaking true. Being a representative of a state is literally to be a lord of old times, actually worse because lords of the medieval period would only have maybe a couple thousand people to govern if even.
@@mjvajdathey did that because they didn't want to add more chairs to the chamber. With the Internet there is no reason they have to all be physically present
In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court has both term _and_ age limits: Your term ends after twelve years or at the end of the month you turn 68 -- whichever comes first.
even if we went with the oldest retirement age social security has, 67, that's still fine too. i'm willing to be flexible & it's not like these people can't all go in to lobbying if they are still of sound mind & body with great skills. & if you are in the middle of an elected term you'd finish your current term before you retire. easy as pie. so
I've always said that we don't need term limits because we can vote people out of office any time we want. We just don't. Too many people just reflexively vote for the incumbent, in both primaries and general elections, when that incumbent is a member of the party that voter generally supports. And because of this, incumbents are rarely challenged in their primaries. Sometimes when there are primary challengers, the incumbent does lose in the primary. That's how AOC got elected, and Cori Bush. But those are outliers. Primary challenges of the incumbent are typically discouraged by the party leadership. I think this problem would take care of itself if we would just normalize serious primary challenges for incumbents.
Unfortunately there's also advantages to being the incumbent, including things like gerrymandering or closing polling stations that is commonplace in the US and advantages those in power to retain it.
Makes sense. As long as the incumbent matches up with you on the issues and such, you gotta go with experience. Not some new guy who's liable to make a lot of freshman mistakes!
@@monkeyflower3851 Not saying you're wrong on this instance but uh it's not like the government doesn't repeatedly infringe on constitutional rights on a regular basis
@@emperorhaz3856 That's not true. Explain to me exactly how Senator Dick Durbin, a career politician who been serving in public office at various levels of government since 1976, is corrupt.
@@bunnyconcubus8468, A minimum already exists... So a maximum is completely justified for exactly the same reasons a minimum exists... Toss out the old f*cks!!!!
I never understood why when Americans (from the USA) disscussed a topic would say "this is in the constitution" as if it was the bible, I always thought, why can't they just completely change it? Thanks for explaining!!!
You can thank the rise of Christian Nationalism and movements like the Moral Majority, raising the Founding Fathers to political sainthood and treating the Constitution like Scripture. Even as a Christian, myself, I've seen the damage this drive for combining church and state does, and I'm afraid it's only going to worsen before it gets better. Add to that how divided our politics have become with increased extremism and corruption, even getting people to agree to change anything would be impossible if it weren't also for the pseudoreligious significance the Constitution has been given by a sizeable chunk of the US.
Ideology aside, you need a 2/3 majority to propose any changes, and 3/4 majority to actually change the constitution. In a divided nation, this is virtually impossible.
@@totalbiscuit4758 We have such reverence for the founding fathers even though they made countless mistakes like the 2nd Amendment and how hard they made it amend the very constitution they have said was flawed. At the time, it was written it may have seemed easy to do but they didn't have any foresight to see how the country could get bigger than the 13 OG Colonies. Now, with 50 states it is impossible.
Thank you for this video! I;m really glad that you laid out all of the cons of simple term limits, especially on Congress. With the disdain that many Americans feel towards Congress and the political paralysis it's experiencing, many don't know or have forgotten that its existence as a strong, structured institution is part of what makes it function correctly. They forget that in years past, members of Congress and their families spent a lot of time with each other and became friends, and they'd often lean on those hidden-from-the-voters friendships to pass legislation. We clearly see the price of the polarization and de-institutionalization most clearly in the House, when Paul Gosar made that veiled threat against AOC, and in the crazy new members that the GOP have gotten into the House.
Thank you Leeja. I’m a pretty stubborn person and I was kind of set on the whole term limits thing but I’m not so thick as to not listen to sense. I think you have switched my mind. However I was always on the side of getting money out of politics. Now let’s have a conversation about transparency. Keep up the good work
This is why I admired David Souter for retiring when he could still enjoy life, too many justices seem to think they are irreplaceable. I haven't supported term limits for either the court or congress but it is something that could get passed, so term limits might be better than the alternative which for the court is people dying in office. We really need a revamped government.
Even if you don't support term limits there should at least be age limits. Say 70 max. No one should be writing laws who's consequences are borne by younger generations.
I'd credit Souter as the recent history Justice closest to actually trying to be a neutral and honest Justice, even if he ended up apologizing to the nation for a few naive moves early on. As to why he retired, I'd not entirely accept his polite public explanation alone. Note how he wrote his concurrence with law, but scathing dissent as to fact, in Erie v Pap's. In effect, in language most people unfamiliar with SCOTUS-speak and pro forma decorum games might easily miss, he called out the Rehnquist - Scalia - Thomas mob as nutcase scammers maliciously incorporating thinly veiled frauds as if evidence to support retention and expansion of Secondary Effects Doctrine, versus carefully packaged perjury Justices have a duty to recognize and treat as such. That seemed to be the other shoe of his retirement, over futility being subordinate to a cabal of religiosity scammers and con men.
The most annoying thing is Justice Marshall resigned in 1991 and we got Thomas. Thurgood Marshall died 8 days into Clinton's term. We would have never had to hear Thomas's name ever.
Good point. 👍 Unfortunately, one party saw this as a game of majority since the 1970s. The other didn't see what was happening. The result was a conservative supermajority on the high court. The sad fact is that, with Trump's picks, anyone over 40 has almost no chance at seeing a progressive SCOTUS majority until they're retirement age, if ever. That's crazy & certainly not what the framers expected. Yet another example of a broken, outdated constitution...
In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court has both term _and_ age limits: Your term ends after twelve years or at the end of the month you turn 68 -- whichever comes first.
Objection! (I know it's an old Legal Eagle thing, but I couldn't resist) The graph you show at 5:40 of average life expectancy is from birth. This gets incredibly skewed when as the life expectancy rate line goes up, child mortality rates also dropped. For example, in 1860, where your graph begins, one in three children died before age 5. And in fact if you pull up a child mortality rate graph, you can see the exact inverse. There's a spike in child mortality in 1885 where there's a dip in life expectancy in the graph you displayed, and another spike in child mortality in 1920 where your graph again has a dip in life expectancy. Life expectancy has indeed gone up still even without taking child mortality rates into account, so your point isn't invalid, it's just been exaggerated to say that the average life expectancy in the late 1800s was 40, when once you account for child mortality rates, the lifespan, on average, was closer to 60, and today is around 80
Yeah, people often get confused on that one... it's a mindfill trying to explain that a 35 year old in the Stone Age wasn't "old", just at the average age of death.
I see that life expectancy was 47 in 1900 and in 1950 it was 68. So I think her graph is still valid. This is from “why life expectancy in the us is falling.” A Harvard study
@@WillZill the graph I looked at seems to be from the same site she used, it was on Statista. It sources its information used to make the graph from the World Health Organization. I wasn't saying her claim that life expectancy was going up was invalid, just misrepresented. When you adjust out deaths under the age of 5, human live expectancy in 1900 was closer to 60 years old. Infant and child mortality rates drastically lower life expectancy numbers. The graph she used shows live expectancy going up 40 years over that time, with average lifespan starting at 40 years old to 80 day, when in reality once the high infant mortality rate is factored out, live expectancy has actually raised by about 20 years over that time.
@@anthonydelfino6171 sounds logical but why would we factor out those children they are still people that died way too soon after all. I guess it would be easier if the graph had different age groups per decade.
Term limits for the Supreme Court or any court is a better idea than for the legislature. They are not chosen from anything resembling a democratic vote.
The reason I'm against term limits is because the way I see it, there would eventually be nobody eligible or nobody that wants to even run. There shouldn't be term limits or an age limit. What we need is a mental age limit, so in other words, if someone is lets say 95, but in perfect physical and mental health, they should be allowed to stay in office. Just look at Strom Thurmond, who was in pretty much perfect physical and mental health until he retired at 100 in 2003. He knew that he should retire as his health was in a drastic decline and wouldn't survive a term if he ran for and won reelection.
When California implemented term limits for elected state legislators and senators, long time, experienced staffers were let go at the end of their “employer’s” term. Without the experience of writing legislation that staffers brought to the table, newly elected legislators relied on the “expertise” of lobbyists, who in essence, wrote their own industry-friendly legislation. It’s a practice that’s still ongoing but doesn’t get any press since the last time that the San Jose Mercury News covered the issue. Just say no to term limits.
Legislation is now written by corporate lobyist, and right-wing institutions like the Federalist Society, who has more power over who gets on our courts. It's been that way since 1981.
Lobbying should be baned. It's bribery, accepting a bribe in government is supposed to be illegal. Wait, what, I forgot, Congress writes their own rules. So 😐
@@kevinstfort The legislators who were termed out, usually ran for other offices and took their staffers with them. In the old days, lobbyists consulted with staffers and the legislators to get their ideas on paper and into bills. Under term limits, the lobbyists literally wrote the bills. The legislators submitted the bills and voted on them. That’s the difference.
Well you have convinced me on term limits. Mandatory retirement ages does make a ton of sense. Getting money out of politics would be amazing! Not going to happen but would definitely be a huge step in the right direction!!!
Retirement age of 65 unless already serving a term; immediately after which you leave; additional leaving condition for Supreme Court(s), at the end of an 18 or 20 year term. Both of these things would have to happen alongside other big changes, ie reducing the power of the Supreme Court(s) in general and changing the nomination process.
Orrin Hatch served for Utah from 1977 to 2019. By the time he retired I didn't know a single conservative who still liked him but they still voted for him because they wouldn't vote for a Democrat. If we cannot set term limits then we need to at least figure out a way to encourage serious primary opposition for entrenched but unpopular politicians.
Ranked-choice voting would allow that, or at least make it a true contest. RIght now, third-party or dark horse candidates don't have much of a chance in our winner-take-all system.
Remove winner takes all system. step 1) Make clear to representatives they lose your vote if they a) Don't say at every turn they will propose and vote for removing it. b) Make it clear to voters and the representatives any current representative that aren't carrying their own weight on that particular issue and primary them. step 2) Convince the public that this is an absolute need, and the only way that third parties can actually matter. Conservatives need to be able to vote against crazy without selling out ALL their values voting democrat and Liberals need to be able to vote for a party different than the democrats without selling out ALL their values voting republican. Only removing winner takes all can even begin to enable third parties. The public must be thoroughly convinced of this. The candidates must not be allowed to say 'yes I agree but I prioritize x important matter' unchallenged. Because all other issues stem from the root issues that are the election system. Maybe there are some interdependent problems like issues in the judiciary, legal system, etc. and I'd be willing to entertain other solutions with the same goal of making third parties viable but other political priorities are by definition more achievable and will get better solutions in a better political system.
It's a common misconception that people didn't live past 60 or 40, or whatever young age. It comes from a misunderstanding of "life expectancy". Child and infant mortality was a lot higher, but if you made it past childhood, living to 70+ was very common. Life expectancy is an average, so the number is skewed down by the kids who didn't make it. Just to be clear, that doesn't mean I think people should be holding office as long as they're alive.
Thank you for taking up this subject. I've been telling people for years now that term limits are not a good idea, and what we actually need is a more informed electorate, but you can imagine how well that goes over... This has helped me make my argument better.
Leeja, many thanks for another outstanding breakdown of issues in American government. You're a natural in this format, and your law degree education shows up very well in your videos. Kudos, and I hope you have a fabulous holiday season.
During the last election, Texans overwhelmingly voted against expanding judicial retirement ages. Usually we rubberstamp every amendment to our state constitution. Not this one.
You mentioned the main issue of having Government officials being cognitive decline, but that a mandatory retirement age would be arbitrary because different people decline at different ages, due to a complex system of different factors many having little to do with natural human life cycle and more to do with lifestyle choices and environmental conditions. Thus the best way to weed out the cognitively unfit would be mandatory cognitive fitness vetting every so often with a team of cognitive health professionals who have the authority to order a mandatory cognitive retirement when/where ever they deem a person cognitively unfit to serve.
Term limits is one of those ideas that sounds good in theory, but in practice gives more institutional knowledge to lobbyists that the legislators rely upon to make their decisions.
@@fl1tz4ryeah it doesn't seem to me that our current not so supreme Court has any clue what their doing. I would trust a homeless person on the side of the road before I trust our supreme Court to make a decision on anything. their blatant disregard for not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law as well, keeps me up at night.
I've been trying to tell my progressive friends this, but the populist lure of term limits, the "throw the bums out and give someone new a chance" idea is hard to get past. I try to mention Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Katie Porter, and AOC as people we don't want pushed out of office, but if they can get rid of Mitch McConnell (since he's a corporate stooge, he's not hard to replace, where an AOC or Bernie is) they seem to feel it's worth it.
I've been saying this ford years now. Also, "term limit" in not the same as "age limits". a senior could still run for office and be just as old and useless and out of touch.
Thank you so much for all the work you do! I cannot begin to express how useful your videos are when it comes to trying to articulate my own views! Thank you for your amazing work!
It's crazy that you made a video about this because i was thinking of this recently! Term limits dont fix the real issues at hand we need so much more than them. Also btw i love the van halen shirt 😂
Good off topic point: "Money is amplification, not speech. Corporations and other organizations with limited liability have no rights at all; with rights come full responsibility. Any crime committed by a corporation will be treated exactly as if it were committed by a person, with "imprisonment" being state control of all decisions and 100% of profits going to the state for the duration of the sentence"
Can't believe everyone is just ignoring the fact that Canada's Supreme Court is apparently all Santa Clauses and Ms. Clauses. The main takeaway of the video.
I used to advocate for term limits, but I understood later how awful they could be for several reasons. These days I like to advocate for "Consecutive Term Limits". Basically a person could only serve 'x' terms in a row before they were required to have a gap in service. Now I'm not sure what the fairest way to do that would be, but it would probably be more effective in allowing the people to elect someone new every once in a while and see if they like the greener grass. Any way you slice it though, the problems are far deeper than term limits can solve, and they might even exacerbate them. Great video, Leeja.
Yes, I've also felt that it would be better to specifically limit consecutive terms. I also had the idea that there could be an exception carved out for a politician to only serve an Xth consecutive term if they receive a supermajority of the vote. For instance, Rep. X can only serve a 3rd consecutive term if they receive 60% of the vote in their district. That way representatives that are well-liked can continue to serve, but only if they're truly representing the majority of their district.
@@richardarriaga6271- If the legislation is written to prevent agreements to hand a given office back and forth between a select group of people, it will.
At ~ 11:15 This is the problem with Congress today. The Congress (House and Senate) no longer represent the Will of the People. They don't because money has corrupted politics. It has, because Corporations have been enabled to influence their will through Lobbyists, Special Interest Groups and promises of unlimited Campaign Contributions to sway votes in Congress in the Corporations' favor.
Your turn to money in politics made me giggle as I was going to comment that one of the problems with age in congress is that you have to be 90 to have accumulated enough money and friends to run for congress. I'd love to see a proposal about how to make it so that running for office you can only use public funds or maybe a combo of some public with matching private, but limited to something that doesn't mean that the best thing about a presidential election year is how much money the NFL is going to make by selling a Super Bowl add to Trump or Biden.
Our system is so broken that we need a completely new foundation to stabilize it. We need a new US Constitution, written and voted on via popular vote (ranked choice) so that everyone has a voice.
Term limits were terrible for California.......TL forced out Willie Brown from running the Cali State Senate, which he ran very well. Back then "professional politicians" from both parties could work out deals without fear of being primaried. Now we have strident warriors, both right and left, who have no interest in compromise. Total disaster.
Misleading. No good legislation ever comes from the GOP or any right wing politicians. Any moderate or conservative candidates are harmful to the well-being of a state. Only progressive candidates make real change.
Better idea actually than getting money out of politics: An ammendment for a popular initiative. Meaning the ability to vote on specific issues directly. If you manage to get that through you could vote on having a mandatory retirement age for public office or limit spending per Person directly without Congress accepting it.
RBG didn't need to be psychic to know when to leave the SC. She was already old, she had a number of health scares recently, and there was a Democrat as president. What she did was vain, selfish and stupid because she thought Hilary would win and wanted her seat to be replaced by her. Anyone dealing with the elderly should know you can't wait for hypotheticals to make major decisons you need to make decisions as early as possible with the information you already have. What RBG did put this entire country in jeopardy all because she was short-sighted (how ironic).
LOL! Has nothing to do with Term limits but I heard "Someone called me a Whiny Little Bitch" and all I could think was "Awe you think I'm little? Thank you". HAHAHA
While I like the idea of a test, the issue would be WHO is creating the testing? How do we determine what constitutes a “good” result versus a “bad” one? Historically, testing in politics has been used to keep “undesirables” from gaining power. How would we ensure that testing doesn’t make politics more insular? I would think that if there were a test, the privileged and the wealthy would have more opportunities to be groomed for those positions than the average American. Just some things off the top of my head.
I’ve been on the fence with term limits. There’s nothing wrong with the most experienced representatives heading committees or being leaders/whips/etc. What we need are age limits and new election methods, the incumbency advantage / campaign finance plays too much a role in elections. That’s the root cause of how people can be in their 80s and serve multiple decades. Fundraising and shilling.
In regards to money in politics, two things I would like to see would be a campaign allotment. Anyone can run, the government provides a campaign fund and they are not allowed to use any money outside of that fund for campaigning. It's part of the spending bills. And Congress/Senate salaries equal to the median income of the state or district they represent. A third, fancy thing I'd like would be for external money (from lobbyists, speaking fees, ect) to count as bribery while a politician is in office. They have to actually live on whatever their public servant salary is and nothing more.
Yes. I think this is more reasonable than a hard age cut off. People do decline cognitively past a certain age so that needs to be monitored, but the way people like folks' brains turn to mush past 65 is weird.
i definitely wouldn’t count out term limits all together with these pros and cons. especially with the supreme court, 18 year limits seem to be on the right track and like a fair enough time to keep justices unbiased. for congress, there definitely needs to be a way to stop the feinsteins and mcconnells from staying in power for as long as they do
I agree about the justices, but for elected officials the answer to McConnells and Feinsteins is competent, pissed off folks from the electorate who are ready to run against these idiots and win.
Here in Colorado not only do we have term limits, the terms are a mere two years - that's nothing!! Not only does a State Representative has to IMMEDIATELY start fundraising for the next campaign, she also has little time to get acquainted with the culture, develop relationships, and get good at a chosen field. This makes them dependent on 'cliff notes' written by lobbyists. Worse yet, the party with the most money has the advantage as the constant campaigning is a huge drain - and the moneybags and industry likes it that way.
If there is a minimum age requirement to be elected to office, there should be a maximum age cap to be ineligible to run for political office. Forced retirement at 65 regardless of what political position you're elected to or selected and confirmed (SCOTUS).
Age limits and to even run they should have to take the same or similar test that immigrants have to take for citizenship. As a citizen of the United States of America; born, raised and educated I know I wouldn't pass. But the pepole I know who have immigrated and gained their citizenship know more about our government than most of us born here.
As someone from outside the US, I am continuously at the lack of calls for separating the supreme court from political appointments, whenever reforms are brought up
19:30 again that is already a problem that term when it’s around the world are effectively showing they solve, for example, Canadian judicial term limits, which are more specifically age limits
I've often heard the argument that term limits will give undue power and influence to bureaucrats and lobbyists, but I've never found that argument to be compelling. On the surface, it seems logical, but the counter-argument is that already happens. Career politicians already rely on lobbyists to tell them what to propose for legislation. They are so busy campaigning for re-election, that they don't have time or a need to become policy experts. They rely on their staffers. This argument posits that institutional memory is more valuable than the consequence of the negative relationships with non-elected persons. I don't think we can honestly evaluate that, as it's rarely examined. We've seen PLENTY of young politicians like AOC who came to congress without the connections and deep pockets of lobbyists who have done just fine. They are passionate, closer to their voters, and more accountable. The longer any representative/senator stays in congress, the less accountable they are to their constituents. The longer they stay, the more influence and desire lobbyists have to build a relationship with them. A lobbyist doesn't have to own every Senator in order to get what they want, they just have to own the most powerful, who will push their agenda forward. Increasing the size of the House of Representatives would be the most impactful way to improve the democratic process, regardless of party. Every American would have a greater chance to proportional representation, and we'd have less struggles with minority/youth/gender representation. If there are more representatives, each one's individual importance diminishes in terms of influence and therefore becomes less valuable and maybe harder to bribe.
Long - serving politicians hang around, because they are known quantities. People who give them tons of money, to get things done, know what to expect from them.
Instead of it being an appointed position, it should just be a role. A compiled list of tested judges/lawyers/legal scholars could be made every year and a certain number of them can be approved and assigned for rulings or cases that go that far. The role stays with the title and not with the person.
virtually every other democracy has term limits, or age limits, or both. We could certainly use one or the other. The justices skew younger particularly BECAUSE of the lack of age limit or term limit. People want to hold onto power for their party as long as possible. The faster natural turnover happens in positions of power, the quicker bad decisions (Dobbs) can be heard by new people and reversed.
Based on what I have seen on the news and among people around me, eighty years seems like a reasonable mandatory retirement age. A lot of people's brains just don't work as well after eighty.
"It always comes back to this" (money in politics) - Absolutely 100% agree. Term and age limits aren't the right overall solutions, but until we get the money out of politics, they're the available options we have to work with. Money is the at the root.
Speaking as an outsider, I think the higher global interconnectedness calls for more malleable lawmaking. Government needs to represent the people. Term limits might not be a big help but maybe, at the risk of talking down to the elderly, there needs to be an AGE limit. Send these people home. Why is Donald not trotting around some garden having fun with his grandkids by now.
@@effend446why should smaller states decide it? Many of those states don’t have near the population, should states with more land mass get more say in our elections than more populated states?
@kimberlychodur3508 Absolutely.......states like Wyoming and Montana have just as much right to decide a presidential election as California. They're part of this country, too. Right? The Electoral College discourages presidential candidates from ignoring the needs and desires of rural populations and encourages them to consider national policies that are suitable for ALL 50 SOVERIGN STATES. I grew up in a rural/small town. We're the last to get the basic necessities that the major cities get. Also, last I checked, we were never a democracy to begin with. We are a constitutional republic. Our founding fathers never believed in democracy to begin with. And the Electoral College is a checks and balances to assure that every state is represented in presidential elections. Btw, the majority is not always right.
Another con of term limits is political dynasties. In the Philippines our constitution is patterned on the US Constitution, as we were formally a US colony. But we do have term limits on congresspeople albeit they can run again 1 term after their expiration ends. In doing so, incumbent representatives can harness the power and money they need to pass it on to their relatives, consolidating power in just a handful of families and keeping their influence in government. No one dares or has the capability to run successfully for a seat if you’re an outsider. It has stagnated the effectivity of our democracy as we expect to have the same surname and the same level of corruption which was passed on to younger political generation. (Of course this and other problems plaguing our democracy)
I've always argued that the biggest problem with term limits is that unless you remove the influence of money from our politics, all you'll succeed in doing is to replace an older person getting kickbacks to a much younger person getting kickbacks from the same people.
Very good Leeja and thank you! I agree with everything you have said except this: RBG did not need to be clairvoyant. She was probably aware enough on her own but also thoroughly advised by others. So we on the left are victims of her pride and hubris stemming in my opinion from excessive left leaning media worship in her waning years. Oh, the irony 😢😢
i know some feel like it’s “ageist” for age limits but let’s just say it, maybe laws should be made by the people who are going to have to live through the long term consequences of them, not those who will be gone within a few years 🤷♀️
There are ALREADY age limits, for people below a certain age. The current system is ageist, by creating a limit on both the upper and lower bounds, you remove that ageism, because at that point the actual arguments behind the age limits are being valued more than just the number.
🐶 Until November 30th, get 60% off your first order of Sundays. Go to get.aspr.app/SHCyk !
⁉ What do you think? Are term limits still a good idea?
Lobbying is more of an issue imo. Any other civilized country just calls it bribery and political corruption... but it's ok here in the US because we call it something different. Term limits make it harder for these same groups to find a bribery loophole to pay off these politicians because of the revolving door. Can we maintain governmental competence with that revolving door is my dilemma.
The journalist who debunked pizzagate was arrested for child molestation 😅
@@dirtyfrench2926 the narrative was trump sent a violent mob to stop his own fake electors scheme
Weird. I just watched a video about term limits and never once heard the phrase 'lame duck'. The problem, as you say, is not career politicians that do a good job, but any politicians who make a career through corruption even if that is a short career. The goal is politicians who are scared of voters, and a lame duck who cannot be re-elected at all is even less scared of voters than a well-connected and well financed one that has a whole career of facing the voters. Limits, age or term, create more lame ducks.
Yes, money out of politics. Yes, age limits on appointees. Also, ranked choice voting. Also, multi-winner congressional districts. Also, national holiday for vote. Also, national popular vote for president. Also, transparency and ethics accountability for justices. Also, increased staffing and budget for congressional research and reporting and ethics investigation.
Not just term limits, but AGE LIMITS as well. Age 60 and out. If you feel the burning desire to continue working, then go to work for PRIVATE INDUSTRY, but get the fuck out of politics/government.
People who no longer understand the world they live in, making the rules for a world they won’t even be in. It’s madness
So no more Republicans.
I’m coping this assertion! It’s the best “ in a nutshell “ definition I’ve seen yet!
It's a huge problem with so many of our officials being over retirement age. Education? Doesn't matter, they're done and their kids are done. Reproductive rights? Doesn't matter, they're well beyond their reproductive years. Climate change? Who cares, many of them won't be around in 20 years.
This is unavoidable. Our knowledge of the world is always imperfect and the effects of most governance will last longer than most people.
@@goldmandrummer yes but the current political system only gives credence to decrepit goons rather than people who are directly invested in the near future.
Its not just about whether their age hinders them or not.
We've got folks between the ages of 60 and 90 years old making decisions for us and our children and their children and their children with consequences they will not have to suffer through.
Sanders and Warren get that. In fact we'd be in a less bad place now if we had listened to them.
So what are you doing to change this?
@@SueFerreira75 lady I work 100+ hours any given week because of those people. What are YOU doing to change it?
No joke, I'm running for governor of WA. I'm 36, I have energy, I care, I'm educated, and I'm ready for change.
The effects of those types of decisions will almost always outlive their deciders... It's a fact of life.
At 75, my grandmother wasn't allowed to go down the stairs to the basement anymore. She should have just run for Congress.
Your grandmother should have run for the Presidency at 75. Nah, too young, Biden is over 89 and Donald RUMP isn't much younger..
@themysterycook7320 she's right about people over 70 making the laws and decisions that affect us younger generations. That's the biggest problem.
themysterycook7320, not 89 he’s 81 years old.
Why not? The congress should reflect the people. Older Younger middle aged all colors, sexes, and ethnics.
@boristheamerican2938 the average age of the Senate is 64. On average these people are a year from retirement. That doesn't reflect America as a whole.
I think allowing citizens to issue recalls for elected officials they’re not satisfied with would also be a good idea
Some states allow this. It's almost always a clown show disaster.
To do that America has to abolished and criminalize conservatism
They won't do that, though. These politicians are popular in their states. Or at least enough counties for them to keep power.
The problem is
A: Americans are politically ignorant and often vote against their self interest.
B: Our electoral system is fraught with gerrymandering and other corruptions.
C: Our candidates are often weak.
I've been pushing for that nationally too!
We have this, they're called elections but the SCOTUS has broken them.
Getting rid of citizens united would work better than term limits. Enforce the hatch act in congress as well as other federal employees.
Excellent idea. How?
@@DoremiFasolatido1979 Maybe go find the right specialization of Lawyer and ask them how instead of a random commenter who knows the general direction to take.
We need a world wide constitutional movement to amend all countries constitutions to directly state that corporations are not people and only have the rights given by statute.
@@Landricities What general direction to take? At best, they suggested that there WAS a direction. In no way did they point out where the direction is.
It's like if I said, "North exists." Yeah...but which way is North?
After that...to continue the comparison...a legal expert could then describe the specifics of following that direction to some hypothetical destination.
@@DoremiFasolatido1979 cool you pointed out my semantics were imprecise, still probably shouldn't ask for specifics from a random commenter in a TH-cam section rather than someone with verified credentials.
I don't think people are screaming for term limits, but AGE limits. You have to be 35 to run for president. There needs to but an age cut off.
Isn't it kind of a coincidence, that it's usually professions of power (senators, judges, CEO's, etc. etc.) that never want to retire. Most people look forward to the day when they can quit working and spend their times doing things they love.
Power is addictive, and these people are all addicts. That is why they can't quit. If they quit, they die, similar to that of people that are long gone into heavy opioid addiction.
Yup. When you have that much power and authority, they need to be limited
🎯 Truer words have never been said!
I said that while we were having problems with Dianne.
Imagine where anybody coming through your door or on the phone wants to only speak to you!
All those lobbyists clamoring to get you to agree to their grift.
All the money from different corporations & greedy CEOs want only to speak to you!
Money & power is a drug.
Why can't more of us see that?
@@banonKINGThen we need to get rid of Citizens United!!!
It's not only about political power. Retiring also mean the ending of inflence, the ending of importance, the ending of Respect. This applies to most proffesions. After retiring, nobody needs you, almost nobody wants your advice.
@@andreah6379 Plus there is also the natural need for attention and, the feeling of importance that are diminishing considerably after retirement
Hey Leeja, political science student at Rice University here. I love your work and am constantly impressed by the breadth of topics you cover, fantastic production quality and consistency of your episodes. Keep up the amazing work!!
Respectfully, however, this is the first video you’ve made that I disagree with completely and I figured I’d make the “pro term limits case” stronger for the comment section. You make an excellent pragmatic case for why term limits are unlikely to become a feature of American government any time soon but I find the core theoretical arguments against ever implementing term limits fairly weak. That politicians need institutional knowledge requiring they stay in government for decades, somehow are less likely to pass through the revolving door to move into lobbying if term unlimited, would never logically term limit themselves and that it’s hard to amend the constitution do not strike me as good enough reasons to oppose term limits on principle.
Why don’t we push for all of it? Nationally implement ranked choice voting. Leave district border creation to independent commissions and mandate political boundaries be contiguous and regularly shaped to fight gerrymandering. Abolish the electoral college. No corporate money in politics. Publicly finance elections. Close lobbying loopholes. No politicians in government over the age of 75. Term limit senators after 3 terms. Term limit house members after 9 terms. Term limit SC justices every 18 years.
In my ideal term limited world, everyone in government gets 18 years to make change and the president gets half that time because of their outsized constitutional influence. It’s often cited that Jefferson thought Americans should rewrite the entire constitution every 19 years..and yeah! It makes sense! It’s the length of a generation. Democracy needs institutional knowledge and a certain level of consistency but it also needs turnover and the maintenance of healthy competition.
For this reason term limits resist the label “undemocratic”; they are, on the contrary, extremely democratic. They, in concert with other reforms, reduce barriers to entry in political markets and are the only way to effectively check incumbency advantage which is inherently undemocratic. Left unchecked, a successful representative can monopolize control of the entire electoral apparatus of a district…effectively barring challengers until the retirement or death of that representative.
I’m thinking you probably read the Heritage Foundation’s pro term limit argument and thought “yikes, gotta make a video about the downsides of term limits” and valid: the HF is scary and wrong all the time. However….this issue goes beyond partisanship as evidenced by polling on the matter.
P.S While we’re idealizing democracy let’s go further: how about making the senate proportional and adding Puerto Rico and DC as states…bit of a pipe dream maybe but fair representation calls for it.
👍
th-cam.com/video/9k3UvaC5m7o/w-d-xo.html@@colelynch1760
Hi Riley,
First, I want to say that I'm replying to your comment because on some level, I agree more with you than most of the other comments I've seen so far. Nevertheless, my disagreements with the video go much deeper, although I will abstain from a point-by-point critique because almost all of this is pointless. The list of reforms you suggest should be pursued will never be passed unless they are written so as to advantage the capitalist class.
However, the key issue I did want to clarify for you is that the Senate can never be made proportional. Article V of the constitution specifies that even via constitutional amendment "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." So, any amendment aiming to do that would have to be ratified not by 3/4 of the states, but would need to be 100% unanimous.
In closing, I'll just add that if you want to "idealize" democracy, you must transcend the notion of elections, which are inherently undemocratic even with term limits, proportionality, ranked choice or approval voting, campaign finance reforms, etc. To vest political power in the people, officials must be selected by lot, offices of unitary authority must be eliminated, and democracy must extend into economic production, distribution, and appropriation of the prosperity therefrom (that is, only a socialist economy is compatible with democracy). Of course, these things as well (or I should say, especially) will never be allowed by the ruling class without a fight.
@@sazhaxeramezha449
To be fair, I did say making the senate proportionally representative was a pipe dream. And, to that end, so are most of the reforms I mentioned...though they have better shots at making our polyarchy (to borrow Dahl's term) a bit more responsive with enough time, money, and advocacy efforts.
As for the political theory stuff: I agree with you on principle. Elections are undemocratic compared with "pure" democracy. Elections are the foundational methodology of republicanism after all.
Random lot for representatives would certainly be an... interesting...system. The only immediate problems I foresee are the matters of personal commitments and people's aptitude for government. Some people would much rather take care of their kids or work some other job than take on being a political representative. Now one could argue that anyone has the capacity to govern with a strong understanding of civics which draws on their own experiences and unique education. However, one could just as easily argue that the random person who becomes a representative would use the position to act in their own interests even more than do our current representatives. All of that talk is, of course, for a different conversation.
Eliminating offices of unitary authority sounds good to me, though one must concede that (occasionally) groups of people need to have someone to turn to to make a quick decision on their behalf as a matter of pragmatism...say to respond to an immediate threat. Ideally we would live in a world where war, disease, human-threatening unknowns, etc did not exist but the world is a complex place...can't exactly vote on "what's going to be our official response to this coastal invasion happening right now," for example.
100% behind workplace democracy. I'm also in a place in my studies where, theoretically at least, I'm in favor of its logical extreme: a world of worker owned cooperatives...or some other form of syndicalism.
Not sure about the last point you raise...fighting the ruling class that is. Regardless of what we all do, I think capitalism is going to collapse under its own weight. Increasingly costly environmental externalities and financialization - which I'm using here to mean the artificial disconnection of labor from its value - are gonna tank it. What will rise from its ashes will be either some form of techno-feudalism (as Varoufakis writes) or, maybe something a bit more socialist and positive. In the optimistic future I like to envision, that world looks like self-sufficient, associational, solar-punk, anarchist communities (ideologically I'm not a big fan of state socialism or states in general).
But if making the senate proportional is pipe dream...imagining a world like that involves a significantly heavier trip.
Not a Yank here, but I studied political science in college and had a paper on American politics.
I just want to say I wish I had the kind of enthusiasm and optimism you have when it comes to making any changes in that particular system. As an outsider, i view American politics as a reality tv show, because it's not *my* tax dollars going down the drain.
Passing any kind of reform in that system seems next to impossible. Even something that is relatively long overdue - the statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, or the passage of the ERA, is dead on arrival. It just seems unlikely that anyone is going to try to move the needle even a little bit on these wedge issues.
Ending congressional gerrymandering would also go a long way towards easing the problems caused by aging lawmakers. It could raise the bar for winning reelection and keep a number of unworthy politicians out of office. I feel like it would reduce terms more naturally.
Dan Crenshaw's district is everything wrong with gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering is a huge problem. It lets politicians pick their voters and not let the voters choose the politicians who represent them. This is why I propose to double or triple the size of the US House. I also propose that a law be passed to require the districts for the House have 6, 7, or 8 Reps. unless the state has 5 or less Reps. That is 6 or 7 OR 7 or 8. The voters would be able to split their allowed votes between as many candidates as they wish, by just voting for more than 1. The allowed number of votes per voter can be 1 or it could be 4 or as many as the number of Reps. for that district (it doesn't matter much at all). Machines would count the votes and assign the fractional votes to the candidates that were voted for. The candidates who got the largest total number of votes would win and be seated in the House.
, , , The benefits of this are => it makes gerrymandering pretty much useless. It would let voters vote for just one, so minor parties can win seats in the House. It should disadvantage extreme candidates because voters can vote for someone else of the same party. It means that voters will almost always have a Rep. from their party in the House to contact about what they want done for them. It means that far fewer voters will not have a Rep. of their party in the House who represents them, including those in minor parties. It also dilutes the weight in the Electoral College of small states from their 2 Senators.
. . . Disadvantages are => It makes the voters not have just 1 Rep. who represents them. It means that the delegation for each district includes Reps. from more than 1 party.
@@stevefitt9538 I would support you however there is a reason why they stopped increasing the size of the US House. The Capitol can't fit anymore representatives.
Private funding of elections is a much bigger issue IMo, as it allows moneyed interests to pre-select candidates prior to elections so constituents choose whomever is good for the money either way.
Another option is the adoption of rank voting
The Leeja Miller Cinematic Universe is slowly weaving together.
Funny these politicians went to college when it was $900/year, I'd like to see them pay for college now.
Grandparents could pay for College with a Summer Job. Your job today has to be "Bezos".
@@noahpartic7586Yes.
Well because they are wealthy, they don't have to worry about college cost for their children.
@@cfltheman Makes sense in a way. The Wealthy & Few have the $ to do WTF Ever, FUCK everyone else. They don't care & don't want anyone else to.
I'd like to see them do it while living in the same tax bracket as they did back then. They like to talk about growing up in humble backgrounds but those humble backgrounds won't even pay for State. Tuition might be affordable but but classes and books can cause you to take out a second mortgage
We have term limits in Missouri in 2016 it almost broke our legislature because a bunch of our civil servants had also been fired or quit. It took an entire session for people to figure out how to do their jobs and the years since have been a mess (for a lot of reasons) but this is definitely one of them.
I could never support term limits because I've seen how bad it can get if too many people are termed out at the same time.
So have alternating term outs.
Problem solved?
Simple! Have a staggered system.
@YourCapybaraAmigo_17yrsago how exactly would that work? Which of the 163 reps would retire and when? Also, would some legislators get extra time or what? This is an incredibly dumb statement.
@annwilliams6438 again how would that work. You're clearly not thinking this through
@@spinninglovelies314 not at all. Set up three different groups, groups A, B, and C. Set them to term out 2-4 years apart from each other. Choose a starting date. Decide how many terms and what length is allowed. Clock starts right away for Group A, two years later for Group B, and four years later for Group C. From that moment on everything's staggered.
That's one way to do it.
Term limits isn’t the issue plaguing our fair representation in Congress…
It’s the fact that there’s not enough members for fair representation. We can’t have 1 person represent 800k people.
Congress did that to themselves in the 1930s when they passed the law that caps the number of reps at 435.
Thank you for pointing this out because it is so freaking true. Being a representative of a state is literally to be a lord of old times, actually worse because lords of the medieval period would only have maybe a couple thousand people to govern if even.
Then vote them out. There is nothing absolute nothing sacred about any laws. They can ALL be changed.@@mjvajda
@@mjvajdathey did that because they didn't want to add more chairs to the chamber. With the Internet there is no reason they have to all be physically present
It’s all of the above
I still like the staggered 18 year terms for the Supreme Court. But let's move toward an age limit asap!
In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court has both term _and_ age limits: Your term ends after twelve years or at the end of the month you turn 68 -- whichever comes first.
If retirement age is 65 for Americans, then it should be for all Americans. Including Supreme court justices, and politicians
No one is forced to retire at 65.
@@freebobafett yes, in certain industries such as airline pilot.
The FBI also has a mandatory retirement age for agents.
even if we went with the oldest retirement age social security has, 67, that's still fine too. i'm willing to be flexible & it's not like these people can't all go in to lobbying if they are still of sound mind & body with great skills. & if you are in the middle of an elected term you'd finish your current term before you retire. easy as pie. so
67 and 4 months is the current full retirement age
I've always said that we don't need term limits because we can vote people out of office any time we want. We just don't. Too many people just reflexively vote for the incumbent, in both primaries and general elections, when that incumbent is a member of the party that voter generally supports. And because of this, incumbents are rarely challenged in their primaries. Sometimes when there are primary challengers, the incumbent does lose in the primary. That's how AOC got elected, and Cori Bush. But those are outliers. Primary challenges of the incumbent are typically discouraged by the party leadership. I think this problem would take care of itself if we would just normalize serious primary challenges for incumbents.
Unfortunately there's also advantages to being the incumbent, including things like gerrymandering or closing polling stations that is commonplace in the US and advantages those in power to retain it.
To do that America needs to abolished and criminalize conservatism
@@somerandomguy4919 uhh...no. That would violate the First Amendment. Like a lot.
Makes sense. As long as the incumbent matches up with you on the issues and such, you gotta go with experience. Not some new guy who's liable to make a lot of freshman mistakes!
@@monkeyflower3851 Not saying you're wrong on this instance but uh it's not like the government doesn't repeatedly infringe on constitutional rights on a regular basis
I’ve been correcting friends for years “No not term limits, AGE limits. That’s what we need.”
That was what I was coming to post as well!
I think it's more of function, age limits doesn't really affect people that are still active at old age and still good at their job
We need both, career politicians only leads to corruption
@@emperorhaz3856 That's not true. Explain to me exactly how Senator Dick Durbin, a career politician who been serving in public office at various levels of government since 1976, is corrupt.
@@bunnyconcubus8468, A minimum already exists... So a maximum is completely justified for exactly the same reasons a minimum exists...
Toss out the old f*cks!!!!
Mandatory retirement age for sure! 65,70,75 doesn't matter as long as there is one.
I never understood why when Americans (from the USA) disscussed a topic would say "this is in the constitution" as if it was the bible, I always thought, why can't they just completely change it? Thanks for explaining!!!
You can thank the rise of Christian Nationalism and movements like the Moral Majority, raising the Founding Fathers to political sainthood and treating the Constitution like Scripture. Even as a Christian, myself, I've seen the damage this drive for combining church and state does, and I'm afraid it's only going to worsen before it gets better. Add to that how divided our politics have become with increased extremism and corruption, even getting people to agree to change anything would be impossible if it weren't also for the pseudoreligious significance the Constitution has been given by a sizeable chunk of the US.
Ideology aside, you need a 2/3 majority to propose any changes, and 3/4 majority to actually change the constitution. In a divided nation, this is virtually impossible.
@@totalbiscuit4758 Indubitably!
@@totalbiscuit4758 We have such reverence for the founding fathers even though they made countless mistakes like the 2nd Amendment and how hard they made it amend the very constitution they have said was flawed. At the time, it was written it may have seemed easy to do but they didn't have any foresight to see how the country could get bigger than the 13 OG Colonies. Now, with 50 states it is impossible.
@@thephoenixxm4160 Or how they spoke about freedoms; but owned slaves.
Thank you for this video! I;m really glad that you laid out all of the cons of simple term limits, especially on Congress.
With the disdain that many Americans feel towards Congress and the political paralysis it's experiencing, many don't know or have forgotten that its existence as a strong, structured institution is part of what makes it function correctly. They forget that in years past, members of Congress and their families spent a lot of time with each other and became friends, and they'd often lean on those hidden-from-the-voters friendships to pass legislation. We clearly see the price of the polarization and de-institutionalization most clearly in the House, when Paul Gosar made that veiled threat against AOC, and in the crazy new members that the GOP have gotten into the House.
Honestly it's not hat we should have term limits, what we need is a better system of electing representatives.
Random selection would give us a more representative government and the avg Congress member would have an IQ 23 pts higher than they currently do.
Considering that politicians generally select their voters before the election I don't see much changing any time soon. 😡
@@freebobafettmost people are too dumb/lazy
Honestly, we need both.
Just because someone does a good job at first, does not mean the quality will keep up.
@@freebobafett ...please dont use IQ in any serious discussion, they are not representative of anything actually real aside from racism and sexism.
Thank you Leeja. I’m a pretty stubborn person and I was kind of set on the whole term limits thing but I’m not so thick as to not listen to sense. I think you have switched my mind. However I was always on the side of getting money out of politics. Now let’s have a conversation about transparency. Keep up the good work
Term limits are there to prevent populist politicians from staying in power. A recallable perpetuity model is better.
This is why I admired David Souter for retiring when he could still enjoy life, too many justices seem to think they are irreplaceable. I haven't supported term limits for either the court or congress but it is something that could get passed, so term limits might be better than the alternative which for the court is people dying in office. We really need a revamped government.
Even if you don't support term limits there should at least be age limits. Say 70 max. No one should be writing laws who's consequences are borne by younger generations.
50, let them understand every decision they made for at least another twenty years.
I'd credit Souter as the recent history Justice closest to actually trying to be a neutral and honest Justice, even if he ended up apologizing to the nation for a few naive moves early on.
As to why he retired, I'd not entirely accept his polite public explanation alone. Note how he wrote his concurrence with law, but scathing dissent as to fact, in Erie v Pap's. In effect, in language most people unfamiliar with SCOTUS-speak and pro forma decorum games might easily miss, he called out the Rehnquist - Scalia - Thomas mob as nutcase scammers maliciously incorporating thinly veiled frauds as if evidence to support retention and expansion of Secondary Effects Doctrine, versus carefully packaged perjury Justices have a duty to recognize and treat as such.
That seemed to be the other shoe of his retirement, over futility being subordinate to a cabal of religiosity scammers and con men.
Greed, and lust for power.
Thank you for helping to point out the easy arguments that people don't get because they only consider what their rulers suggest.
The most annoying thing is Justice Marshall resigned in 1991 and we got Thomas. Thurgood Marshall died 8 days into Clinton's term. We would have never had to hear Thomas's name ever.
Good point. 👍
Unfortunately, one party saw this as a game of majority since the 1970s. The other didn't see what was happening. The result was a conservative supermajority on the high court. The sad fact is that, with Trump's picks, anyone over 40 has almost no chance at seeing a progressive SCOTUS majority until they're retirement age, if ever. That's crazy & certainly not what the framers expected. Yet another example of a broken, outdated constitution...
In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court has both term _and_ age limits: Your term ends after twelve years or at the end of the month you turn 68 -- whichever comes first.
Objection! (I know it's an old Legal Eagle thing, but I couldn't resist)
The graph you show at 5:40 of average life expectancy is from birth. This gets incredibly skewed when as the life expectancy rate line goes up, child mortality rates also dropped. For example, in 1860, where your graph begins, one in three children died before age 5. And in fact if you pull up a child mortality rate graph, you can see the exact inverse. There's a spike in child mortality in 1885 where there's a dip in life expectancy in the graph you displayed, and another spike in child mortality in 1920 where your graph again has a dip in life expectancy.
Life expectancy has indeed gone up still even without taking child mortality rates into account, so your point isn't invalid, it's just been exaggerated to say that the average life expectancy in the late 1800s was 40, when once you account for child mortality rates, the lifespan, on average, was closer to 60, and today is around 80
Yeah, people often get confused on that one... it's a mindfill trying to explain that a 35 year old in the Stone Age wasn't "old", just at the average age of death.
Which website are you quoting this from?
I see that life expectancy was 47 in 1900 and in 1950 it was 68. So I think her graph is still valid.
This is from “why life expectancy in the us is falling.” A Harvard study
@@WillZill the graph I looked at seems to be from the same site she used, it was on Statista. It sources its information used to make the graph from the World Health Organization.
I wasn't saying her claim that life expectancy was going up was invalid, just misrepresented. When you adjust out deaths under the age of 5, human live expectancy in 1900 was closer to 60 years old. Infant and child mortality rates drastically lower life expectancy numbers. The graph she used shows live expectancy going up 40 years over that time, with average lifespan starting at 40 years old to 80 day, when in reality once the high infant mortality rate is factored out, live expectancy has actually raised by about 20 years over that time.
@@anthonydelfino6171 sounds logical but why would we factor out those children they are still people that died way too soon after all. I guess it would be easier if the graph had different age groups per decade.
Term limits for the Supreme Court or any court is a better idea than for the legislature. They are not chosen from anything resembling a democratic vote.
That's Mitch McConnell's fault though.
it doesn't require psychic powers to be 80 years old and realize you might not have decades left
Bingo
The reason I'm against term limits is because the way I see it, there would eventually be nobody eligible or nobody that wants to even run. There shouldn't be term limits or an age limit. What we need is a mental age limit, so in other words, if someone is lets say 95, but in perfect physical and mental health, they should be allowed to stay in office. Just look at Strom Thurmond, who was in pretty much perfect physical and mental health until he retired at 100 in 2003. He knew that he should retire as his health was in a drastic decline and wouldn't survive a term if he ran for and won reelection.
Leeja has rapidly become my favorite TH-camr, she’s like the “Lone Gunmen” circa the X-Files
Thank you, Leeja. Retirement age is a much more logical option. Our country is literally archaic.
When California implemented term limits for elected state legislators and senators, long time, experienced staffers were let go at the end of their “employer’s” term. Without the experience of writing legislation that staffers brought to the table, newly elected legislators relied on the “expertise” of lobbyists, who in essence, wrote their own industry-friendly legislation. It’s a practice that’s still ongoing but doesn’t get any press since the last time that the San Jose Mercury News covered the issue. Just say no to term limits.
Legislation is now written by corporate lobyist, and right-wing institutions like the Federalist Society, who has more power over who gets on our courts. It's been that way since 1981.
You think the lobbyists weren’t involved before? And what was stopping new legislators from hiring experience staff members.
@@kevinstfortYeah, why wouldn't a new legislator pick an old staffer they like?
Lobbying should be baned. It's bribery, accepting a bribe in government is supposed to be illegal. Wait, what, I forgot, Congress writes their own rules. So 😐
@@kevinstfort The legislators who were termed out, usually ran for other offices and took their staffers with them. In the old days, lobbyists consulted with staffers and the legislators to get their ideas on paper and into bills. Under term limits, the lobbyists literally wrote the bills. The legislators submitted the bills and voted on them. That’s the difference.
Well you have convinced me on term limits. Mandatory retirement ages does make a ton of sense. Getting money out of politics would be amazing! Not going to happen but would definitely be a huge step in the right direction!!!
Yes, we need a cut off date for all people in government
agreed!
Random selection like juries.
@freebobafett Yes that would make sense, just no lifetime appointments
Retirement age of 65 unless already serving a term; immediately after which you leave; additional leaving condition for Supreme Court(s), at the end of an 18 or 20 year term.
Both of these things would have to happen alongside other big changes, ie reducing the power of the Supreme Court(s) in general and changing the nomination process.
Oh good, she addresses both points.
RBG didn't need to be psychic to know that retiring in her 80's would have been pragmatic.
Orrin Hatch served for Utah from 1977 to 2019. By the time he retired I didn't know a single conservative who still liked him but they still voted for him because they wouldn't vote for a Democrat. If we cannot set term limits then we need to at least figure out a way to encourage serious primary opposition for entrenched but unpopular politicians.
They need to show up to the primaries. Amway can't just be doing elections.
Ranked-choice voting would allow that, or at least make it a true contest. RIght now, third-party or dark horse candidates don't have much of a chance in our winner-take-all system.
Remove winner takes all system.
step 1) Make clear to representatives they lose your vote if they a) Don't say at every turn they will propose and vote for removing it. b) Make it clear to voters and the representatives any current representative that aren't carrying their own weight on that particular issue and primary them.
step 2) Convince the public that this is an absolute need, and the only way that third parties can actually matter. Conservatives need to be able to vote against crazy without selling out ALL their values voting democrat and Liberals need to be able to vote for a party different than the democrats without selling out ALL their values voting republican.
Only removing winner takes all can even begin to enable third parties.
The public must be thoroughly convinced of this.
The candidates must not be allowed to say 'yes I agree but I prioritize x important matter' unchallenged.
Because all other issues stem from the root issues that are the election system.
Maybe there are some interdependent problems like issues in the judiciary, legal system, etc. and I'd be willing to entertain other solutions with the same goal of making third parties viable but other political priorities are by definition more achievable and will get better solutions in a better political system.
rank choice just allows one party rule@@julietfischer5056
It's a common misconception that people didn't live past 60 or 40, or whatever young age. It comes from a misunderstanding of "life expectancy". Child and infant mortality was a lot higher, but if you made it past childhood, living to 70+ was very common. Life expectancy is an average, so the number is skewed down by the kids who didn't make it.
Just to be clear, that doesn't mean I think people should be holding office as long as they're alive.
Thank you for taking up this subject. I've been telling people for years now that term limits are not a good idea, and what we actually need is a more informed electorate, but you can imagine how well that goes over... This has helped me make my argument better.
Haven't even watched this yet and I already know it's one of my favorite videos of yours. This topic drives me crazy! Thank you for taking it on!
Leeja, many thanks for another outstanding breakdown of issues in American government. You're a natural in this format, and your law degree education shows up very well in your videos. Kudos, and I hope you have a fabulous holiday season.
18:07 You forget the fact that this just extend the time that his opposing constituency won’t have a voice
During the last election, Texans overwhelmingly voted against expanding judicial retirement ages. Usually we rubberstamp every amendment to our state constitution. Not this one.
You mentioned the main issue of having Government officials being cognitive decline, but that a mandatory retirement age would be arbitrary because different people decline at different ages, due to a complex system of different factors many having little to do with natural human life cycle and more to do with lifestyle choices and environmental conditions. Thus the best way to weed out the cognitively unfit would be mandatory cognitive fitness vetting every so often with a team of cognitive health professionals who have the authority to order a mandatory cognitive retirement when/where ever they deem a person cognitively unfit to serve.
Term limits is one of those ideas that sounds good in theory, but in practice gives more institutional knowledge to lobbyists that the legislators rely upon to make their decisions.
Plus, seniority is important in the governmental problem-solving process
Gotta have people who know stuff inside and out
How is that any different than now. Lobbyists write the bills. Congress doesn't read them and passes them along party/campaign bribe lines.
Bingo!
@@fl1tz4ryeah it doesn't seem to me that our current not so supreme Court has any clue what their doing. I would trust a homeless person on the side of the road before I trust our supreme Court to make a decision on anything. their blatant disregard for not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law as well, keeps me up at night.
this is a silly excuse we can get rid of lobbyists as well. it's bribery that's what it is and calling it lobbying doesn't change the definition.
I've been trying to tell my progressive friends this, but the populist lure of term limits, the "throw the bums out and give someone new a chance" idea is hard to get past. I try to mention Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Katie Porter, and AOC as people we don't want pushed out of office, but if they can get rid of Mitch McConnell (since he's a corporate stooge, he's not hard to replace, where an AOC or Bernie is) they seem to feel it's worth it.
I've been saying this ford years now. Also, "term limit" in not the same as "age limits". a senior could still run for office and be just as old and useless and out of touch.
Thank you so much for all the work you do! I cannot begin to express how useful your videos are when it comes to trying to articulate my own views! Thank you for your amazing work!
She suffers from never miss syndrome. It's not sad, I want more content because all of it has been fire. Keep up the amazing work!
It's crazy that you made a video about this because i was thinking of this recently! Term limits dont fix the real issues at hand we need so much more than them. Also btw i love the van halen shirt 😂
"...until the sun explodes and puts us out of our misery."
LLOL!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Good off topic point: "Money is amplification, not speech. Corporations and other organizations with limited liability have no rights at all; with rights come full responsibility. Any crime committed by a corporation will be treated exactly as if it were committed by a person, with "imprisonment" being state control of all decisions and 100% of profits going to the state for the duration of the sentence"
Nationalizing industry gets me randy
Can't believe everyone is just ignoring the fact that Canada's Supreme Court is apparently all Santa Clauses and Ms. Clauses. The main takeaway of the video.
I used to advocate for term limits, but I understood later how awful they could be for several reasons. These days I like to advocate for "Consecutive Term Limits". Basically a person could only serve 'x' terms in a row before they were required to have a gap in service. Now I'm not sure what the fairest way to do that would be, but it would probably be more effective in allowing the people to elect someone new every once in a while and see if they like the greener grass. Any way you slice it though, the problems are far deeper than term limits can solve, and they might even exacerbate them. Great video, Leeja.
Yes, I've also felt that it would be better to specifically limit consecutive terms. I also had the idea that there could be an exception carved out for a politician to only serve an Xth consecutive term if they receive a supermajority of the vote. For instance, Rep. X can only serve a 3rd consecutive term if they receive 60% of the vote in their district. That way representatives that are well-liked can continue to serve, but only if they're truly representing the majority of their district.
How would that prevent a Putin from taking office?
@@richardarriaga6271- If the legislation is written to prevent agreements to hand a given office back and forth between a select group of people, it will.
At ~ 11:15 This is the problem with Congress today. The Congress (House and Senate) no longer represent the Will of the People. They don't because money has corrupted politics. It has, because Corporations have been enabled to influence their will through Lobbyists, Special Interest Groups and promises of unlimited Campaign Contributions to sway votes in Congress in the Corporations' favor.
Here in Oz High Court Justices must retire at 70 a good idea.
Yes agreed!
There shouldn't be a Max age, but definitely lots of tests to ensure they can function
Well, when all your job is to do but gossip all day, why retire?
They are essentially being paid for nothing. 😶
Your turn to money in politics made me giggle as I was going to comment that one of the problems with age in congress is that you have to be 90 to have accumulated enough money and friends to run for congress. I'd love to see a proposal about how to make it so that running for office you can only use public funds or maybe a combo of some public with matching private, but limited to something that doesn't mean that the best thing about a presidential election year is how much money the NFL is going to make by selling a Super Bowl add to Trump or Biden.
Yes, but then also we would need to ban PACs. That money is gonna go somewhere if it doesn't go directly to the campaign.
Our system is so broken that we need a completely new foundation to stabilize it.
We need a new US Constitution, written and voted on via popular vote (ranked choice) so that everyone has a voice.
Term limits were terrible for California.......TL forced out Willie Brown from running the Cali State Senate, which he ran very well. Back then "professional politicians" from both parties could work out deals without fear of being primaried. Now we have strident warriors, both right and left, who have no interest in compromise. Total disaster.
We are beyond the point when compromising with the right is a good idea. It never works out in the favor of the left.
Misleading. No good legislation ever comes from the GOP or any right wing politicians. Any moderate or conservative candidates are harmful to the well-being of a state. Only progressive candidates make real change.
Leeja, you say goodbye too fast! It makes me feel lonely, and I'm not lonely at all.
Better idea actually than getting money out of politics: An ammendment for a popular initiative. Meaning the ability to vote on specific issues directly. If you manage to get that through you could vote on having a mandatory retirement age for public office or limit spending per Person directly without Congress accepting it.
RBG didn't need to be psychic to know when to leave the SC. She was already old, she had a number of health scares recently, and there was a Democrat as president. What she did was vain, selfish and stupid because she thought Hilary would win and wanted her seat to be replaced by her. Anyone dealing with the elderly should know you can't wait for hypotheticals to make major decisons you need to make decisions as early as possible with the information you already have. What RBG did put this entire country in jeopardy all because she was short-sighted (how ironic).
Implement a legacy league for the older politicians where their decisions don't actually impact anything but they can still feel important
Like an emeritus status?
Like a fake player 2 controller you give to younger siblings/babies so they can pretend to play
We have those. It's called nursing homes. Although that's what congress has become, "America's most expensive old folks home."
If the average age is 65, and they’ve been there for decades do they really resonate with their constituents?
LOL! Has nothing to do with Term limits but I heard "Someone called me a Whiny Little Bitch" and all I could think was "Awe you think I'm little? Thank you". HAHAHA
Age limits would be a great idea. What do you think about a cognitive test after a certain age similar to in driving?
If we do that, we should also do tests for people's understanding of the government. Then people like MTG wouldn't be in office
a cognitive test would be a good thing as long as it was just a bit harder than the alzheimer's test that 45 bragged about passing
Driving also requires a test BEFORE being allowed start. Test them as part of their eligibility for candidacy, and every 5 yrs thereafter.
While I like the idea of a test, the issue would be WHO is creating the testing? How do we determine what constitutes a “good” result versus a “bad” one?
Historically, testing in politics has been used to keep “undesirables” from gaining power. How would we ensure that testing doesn’t make politics more insular? I would think that if there were a test, the privileged and the wealthy would have more opportunities to be groomed for those positions than the average American. Just some things off the top of my head.
@@julianjaynes67 #facts I trust AOC to make the test but pretty sure the GOP would have a collective aneurysm
Let's get rid of term limits for the presidency too. Obama 2024!
I’ve been on the fence with term limits. There’s nothing wrong with the most experienced representatives heading committees or being leaders/whips/etc. What we need are age limits and new election methods, the incumbency advantage / campaign finance plays too much a role in elections. That’s the root cause of how people can be in their 80s and serve multiple decades. Fundraising and shilling.
In regards to money in politics, two things I would like to see would be a campaign allotment. Anyone can run, the government provides a campaign fund and they are not allowed to use any money outside of that fund for campaigning. It's part of the spending bills.
And Congress/Senate salaries equal to the median income of the state or district they represent.
A third, fancy thing I'd like would be for external money (from lobbyists, speaking fees, ect) to count as bribery while a politician is in office. They have to actually live on whatever their public servant salary is and nothing more.
Not about term limits. More about fit for duty assessments, which are a practice in almost every other industry.
Yes. I think this is more reasonable than a hard age cut off. People do decline cognitively past a certain age so that needs to be monitored, but the way people like folks' brains turn to mush past 65 is weird.
This is an important video, one of those “videos everyone should watch”, a designation I usually save for George Carlin clips
Thanks for all your wonderful work!!! ❤
Australia has a mandatory retirement age of 70 for our High court.
Should have waited to the end of the video.
i definitely wouldn’t count out term limits all together with these pros and cons. especially with the supreme court, 18 year limits seem to be on the right track and like a fair enough time to keep justices unbiased. for congress, there definitely needs to be a way to stop the feinsteins and mcconnells from staying in power for as long as they do
I agree about the justices, but for elected officials the answer to McConnells and Feinsteins is competent, pissed off folks from the electorate who are ready to run against these idiots and win.
Love your channel and this informative presentation. I often share your materials with friends in the US and abroad. Very eye-opening! Thank you.
Here in Colorado not only do we have term limits, the terms are a mere two years - that's nothing!! Not only does a State Representative has to IMMEDIATELY start fundraising for the next campaign, she also has little time to get acquainted with the culture, develop relationships, and get good at a chosen field. This makes them dependent on 'cliff notes' written by lobbyists. Worse yet, the party with the most money has the advantage as the constant campaigning is a huge drain - and the moneybags and industry likes it that way.
If there is a minimum age requirement to be elected to office, there should be a maximum age cap to be ineligible to run for political office. Forced retirement at 65 regardless of what political position you're elected to or selected and confirmed (SCOTUS).
Age limits and to even run they should have to take the same or similar test that immigrants have to take for citizenship. As a citizen of the United States of America; born, raised and educated I know I wouldn't pass. But the pepole I know who have immigrated and gained their citizenship know more about our government than most of us born here.
As someone from outside the US, I am continuously at the lack of calls for separating the supreme court from political appointments, whenever reforms are brought up
If the presidency can have term limits, so can other positions!
19:30 again that is already a problem that term when it’s around the world are effectively showing they solve, for example, Canadian judicial term limits, which are more specifically age limits
Get money out of politics!!!
I've often heard the argument that term limits will give undue power and influence to bureaucrats and lobbyists, but I've never found that argument to be compelling. On the surface, it seems logical, but the counter-argument is that already happens. Career politicians already rely on lobbyists to tell them what to propose for legislation. They are so busy campaigning for re-election, that they don't have time or a need to become policy experts. They rely on their staffers. This argument posits that institutional memory is more valuable than the consequence of the negative relationships with non-elected persons.
I don't think we can honestly evaluate that, as it's rarely examined. We've seen PLENTY of young politicians like AOC who came to congress without the connections and deep pockets of lobbyists who have done just fine. They are passionate, closer to their voters, and more accountable. The longer any representative/senator stays in congress, the less accountable they are to their constituents. The longer they stay, the more influence and desire lobbyists have to build a relationship with them. A lobbyist doesn't have to own every Senator in order to get what they want, they just have to own the most powerful, who will push their agenda forward.
Increasing the size of the House of Representatives would be the most impactful way to improve the democratic process, regardless of party. Every American would have a greater chance to proportional representation, and we'd have less struggles with minority/youth/gender representation. If there are more representatives, each one's individual importance diminishes in terms of influence and therefore becomes less valuable and maybe harder to bribe.
Long - serving politicians hang around, because they are known quantities. People who give them tons of money, to get things done, know what to expect from them.
The only people saying term limits won't work are the ones who are benefiting from the current system ! Wasn't trump going to drain that swamp ????
Instead of it being an appointed position, it should just be a role. A compiled list of tested judges/lawyers/legal scholars could be made every year and a certain number of them can be approved and assigned for rulings or cases that go that far. The role stays with the title and not with the person.
virtually every other democracy has term limits, or age limits, or both. We could certainly use one or the other. The justices skew younger particularly BECAUSE of the lack of age limit or term limit. People want to hold onto power for their party as long as possible. The faster natural turnover happens in positions of power, the quicker bad decisions (Dobbs) can be heard by new people and reversed.
Virtually ever other democracy has more than two parties… that itself is the biggest problem with our system
Based on what I have seen on the news and among people around me, eighty years seems like a reasonable mandatory retirement age. A lot of people's brains just don't work as well after eighty.
"It always comes back to this" (money in politics) - Absolutely 100% agree. Term and age limits aren't the right overall solutions, but until we get the money out of politics, they're the available options we have to work with. Money is the at the root.
Great information, excellent presentation. Term limits no, health both mental and physical, YES
Speaking as an outsider, I think the higher global interconnectedness calls for more malleable lawmaking. Government needs to represent the people. Term limits might not be a big help but maybe, at the risk of talking down to the elderly, there needs to be an AGE limit. Send these people home. Why is Donald not trotting around some garden having fun with his grandkids by now.
We need to get rid of the electoral college and have direct voting. Change my mind
If we did that Republicans wouldn't be able to become president. Oh the humanity!!😮
So basically, you would rather have big states like California and Texas decide the presidential election every single time?
@@effend446 they are the true majority so yes
@@effend446why should smaller states decide it? Many of those states don’t have near the population, should states with more land mass get more say in our elections than more populated states?
@kimberlychodur3508 Absolutely.......states like Wyoming and Montana have just as much right to decide a presidential election as California. They're part of this country, too. Right?
The Electoral College discourages presidential candidates from ignoring the needs and desires of rural populations and encourages them to consider national policies that are suitable for ALL 50 SOVERIGN STATES.
I grew up in a rural/small town. We're the last to get the basic necessities that the major cities get.
Also, last I checked, we were never a democracy to begin with. We are a constitutional republic. Our founding fathers never believed in democracy to begin with. And the Electoral College is a checks and balances to assure that every state is represented in presidential elections.
Btw, the majority is not always right.
Another con of term limits is political dynasties. In the Philippines our constitution is patterned on the US Constitution, as we were formally a US colony. But we do have term limits on congresspeople albeit they can run again 1 term after their expiration ends. In doing so, incumbent representatives can harness the power and money they need to pass it on to their relatives, consolidating power in just a handful of families and keeping their influence in government. No one dares or has the capability to run successfully for a seat if you’re an outsider. It has stagnated the effectivity of our democracy as we expect to have the same surname and the same level of corruption which was passed on to younger political generation. (Of course this and other problems plaguing our democracy)
We have mandatory retirements on Justices tho! It works better than our Congress (well except with political persuasion from the President
I've always argued that the biggest problem with term limits is that unless you remove the influence of money from our politics, all you'll succeed in doing is to replace an older person getting kickbacks to a much younger person getting kickbacks from the same people.
Wow, can believe you actually made me rethink Term Limits.
Very good Leeja and thank you! I agree with everything you have said except this: RBG did not need to be clairvoyant. She was probably aware enough on her own but also thoroughly advised by others. So we on the left are victims of her pride and hubris stemming in my opinion from excessive left leaning media worship in her waning years. Oh, the irony 😢😢
I had to stop and just comment about the nonchalant way she called Mitch McConnell “human turd”.
i know some feel like it’s “ageist” for age limits but let’s just say it, maybe laws should be made by the people who are going to have to live through the long term consequences of them, not those who will be gone within a few years 🤷♀️
There are ALREADY age limits, for people below a certain age. The current system is ageist, by creating a limit on both the upper and lower bounds, you remove that ageism, because at that point the actual arguments behind the age limits are being valued more than just the number.
Retirement should be retirement. Trust me - being retired, with COLA and comprehensive health care, is GREAT FUN !!!! Y'all should try it!!!!
Age limits!!!!!!!!!
yassssss