this post was submitted on 13 May 2026
901 points (99.2% liked)
Not The Onion
21484 readers
2451 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why do you think so?
We see it in studying state legislatures who have term limits. (I studied this in graduate school before switching to a different master's program)
Term limits doesn't change how much power and money are available. It just changes who controls that power and money (the budget.) If the congressmen lose some of that power via term limits, that power doesn't go away. It doesn't go unused. It gets scooped up and used by the lobbyists to get things passed a naive congress.
Worst, you create perverse incentives where congressmen are locked out of running for re-election, so they take their expertise and contacts gained in office and work for the lobbyists that used to lobby them.
No, as good as term limits sound, it's much, much better to leave it up to the voters to decide who their rep will be. If they want a 40 year veteran or a rookie every two years, that's their choice to make.