There are no term limits for Senators OR Members of the House, but they are not senators for life, senators face re-election every six years, House Members every two years. This provides the voters with more choice, which to me seems like a GOOD thing. If voters LIKE their senator, they can keep reelecting him or her, if they dont, they can vote him/her out - with term limits voters cannot reward good senators with reelection and voters may be forced to give up a good senator for someone new who may be good or bad. Why should voter's choices be restricted in that way?
Term limits are also bad because they make politicians LESS responsive to the voters. If a senator is in their last term, their lame duck term, there is no reason for them to do what their constituents want. If they have to face reelection then they will do things the voters want in order to get their votes next time around - if they cant get reelected no matter what, where is the incentive to do things the voters want?
Also experienced politicians generally speaking make better politicians - they know how to get things done. Just like you would rather have an experienced surgeon operating on your, or an experienced pilot flying your plane, an experienced politician will be more effective than an inexperienced one, and term limits remove experienced politicians.
Term limits make sense for the office of the President, because thats a MUCH more powerful position, and such power may corrupt the officeholder so that they abuse the office they hold. But each senator and member of congress is just one out of 535 people, so their power is much less, and therefore the danger from them being corrupted is also less.
- Response by xerxes
, An Intellectual Guy, Male, 46-55, Washington, DC, Lawyer