id argue one cannot change the composition of congress. political propaganda is regulated through the big 3 media outlets, and is a one-way monologue reinforcing certain values and priorities. Congressional candidates respond only to the cash that is required to secure their elections, and thus their real constituency is comprised almost entirely of corporate interests.
>id argue one cannot change the composition of congress.
I hope that if term limits ever become a thing, it would only take a few elections of well informed voters to start making the change.
I think that congress is supposed to be a fluid body of people that are supposed to represent the population, and change as the population's interests change.
What we have now is career politicians making it to congress, and then milking it with all the donations, re election groups and lobby groups funneling them money making it very hard to actually enact any real change.
Even if one or two people make it to congress that are young and full of ideas/change they cannot get anything done because they are vastly outnumbered by the old fogies still writing policies like the 1950's.
While terms limits solve one problem, it creates a far bigger one. Most well meaning “good people” have to sacrifice their career in order to serve in Politics. Yes, it is a career. But what is wrong with it? What do you think they should do with rest of their life?
Moreover, it takes more than one term to achieve any meaningful change. Things like Obamacare didn’t just start with Obama. Major changes takes 10+ years.
Congress/senators should be under better scrutiny, yes. Don’t let them become corrupt, prevent insider trading etc. but terms limits is not the solution to this problem. In my opinion I think term limit would rule out “poor people” from ever trying to run for office.
Your point is valid here, but I'll mention that the type of people you feel would possibly be excluded are very likely already excluded by the current system.
