Surprisingly based from ND, to be completely honest

  • aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    It would also limit effectiveness in an important and difficult job that requires potentially years of procedural understanding and relationship building to pass impactful legislation.

    A company where every employee was “junior” would waste a lot of time and money.

    • eodur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, I have strongly mixed feelings on this. Perhaps we should intact term limits, but probably not as short as usually proposed and probably paired with something to limit outside influence. The common claim I hear is that with a more junior Congress they would be even more reliant on the parts of “government” that stick around longer, like lobbyists.

      • aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        The call for term limits usually comes from the people who want (need?) government to be impotent and dysfunctional - typically echoing messages that very wealthy capitalists have injected into the public discourse.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      It requires years of procedural understanding because there’s no term limits. There isn’t benefit to that excessive procedure apart from making junior representatives lives more difficult. Congress can make their own rules, and they make them benefit those who have been there for 30 years. A term limited Congress can make rules that work better for them.