[dloose]

I'm not sure that Congressional term limits are necessarily a good thing. Lobbyists and other special interests don't have term limits. It seems to me that if we impose term limits on Congress members, then the lobbyists will be the ones with the most experience drafting and passing legislation. I'm all for limiting the influence of money in politics and making more Congress seats "vulnerable" (something like 90% of incumbents get re-elected), but when we find a good legislator I think we should be allowed to keep them.

[ninjakeyboard]

moral of the story, you can't make these changes without some sort of analysis to show that they will have the intended effect. He's pulling the trigger w/o understanding the end effect imo.

[internaut]

> when we find a good legislator I think we should be allowed to keep them.

It's a fair point. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the 'term limits' mean, whether they are similar to presidential term limits (my original assumption) or not.

The question I find myself wondering is:

Is the range of possible upside equivalent to the range of possible downside?

My intuition is that there's a limited amount marginal improvements except in special cases but the potential downside goes from bad to worse to flat out catastrophic.

Maybe it is like how most programmers can improve a code base, but a single bad actor could fuck it to hell and back with greater ease.

I'm looking at you Dianne Feinstein. Evil bat-witch.