system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Imposing Senator Term Limits would be in the best interest of all citizens for either party.

This would likely never happen, as our senators would have to be the ones implementing this decision.  Fat chance they impose rules that put them out of a job in this economy.  But I digress...

&#x200B;

Lifetime senators do no service to their constituents.  People like Mitch McConnell AND Nancy Pelosi know they're essentially set for life as long as they keep the favor of their party, because they aren't exactly in swing states.  As it stands, the senators we currently have have the hands of various corporations lining their pockets and are abusing their power by utilizing their power to promote their own insider trading.  We also have people who don't care to make good on any promises because there is no threat if they don't do a good job.

&#x200B;

  
Term limits would mean that there would always be a position open and there would always be someone angling for the spot.  Even if we had a round of 3 or 4 terms by the same party, it would always be a different congressperson.  I believe this would force candidates to actually do something in their time in Congress.
gpt
>People like Mitch McConnell AND Nancy Pelosi know they're essentially set for life as long as they keep the favor of their party, because they aren't exactly in swing states.

Not entirely.  Both could be primaried and replaced with other candidates that align to their party, even in states that are not swing.

They _aren't_ seriously primaried because they command power in the Senate/House, which is _incredibly_ beneficial to their home state.  Having the Majority/Minority Leader or Speaker be _your_ representative is incredibly valuable.

-----

But let's put all that aside.  The problem with term limits is that governing is a job just like any other.  You aren't good at it when you first start, and it takes many years to learn how to effectively pass law.  Term limits sound like a good idea because you get "fresh blood" but what happens when you get a group of people who have no idea what they are doing in incredibly important positions?  

They get advice from whoever is there to give it, and those people would be **lobbyists**.  Term limits would just give lobbyists even more power.  Lobbyists will come with ready-made bills that the Congressperson won't understand, and that won't be good for governance at all.

Moreover, with term limits, there would be nothing stopping Congresspeople from making sweetheart deals with lobbyists for post-Congressional employment because they know they are no longer accountable to the people.

Term limits create worse representation, not better.  They should be avoided at all costs.  If people want a new representative, let them vote in a new one.  If they like the one they have, that's great too.

-----

So, why do we have term limits for the President?  Well, that is a very unique position where the benefits outweigh the cost.  No other position in government has _all_ of the power invested in a _single_ person, so the danger of one person consolidating power is incredibly great.  Imagine a ruthless president that replaces all of the military commanders with folks loyal to _him_ rather than the country.  That leads to dictators.

Congressmen don't have that same threat - even McConnel has only 1/100th of the power of the Senate.