Correction: We never had term limits for Senators. The 17th Amendment provided for direct, popular election of Senators. Before that, Senators were selected by vote of state legislatures. In practice, this meant that Senators represented the concerns of state governments. Yes, they did get replaced at the end of their terms if another party had taken power in the state legislature, but that was not term limits. And, if one party controlled the state for decades, as the Democrats did in the South after the Civil War, then the same person might be re-elected many times. Other than that one quibble, your post is essentially correct.baldeagle wrote:We used to have term limits for Senators. Then they passed the 17th Amendment and destroyed the system of checks and balances. Representatives are as close as we come to democratic elections. They represent the voice of the people. Senators were supposed to represent the voice of the State. They were appointed by the Governor or Legislature and represented the party that was in power at the time. When the Governor or Legislature changed, the Senator might change too. Furthermore, Senators were not beholden to the people to represent their views. Now both houses are about the next election.
Repeal the 17th Amendment. Then let's see what impact that has before we make any further changes.
I find the notion of being afraid of term limits rather quaint. It's like saying, I love this guy that represents me now and there's not another person in my state who could do as well as he does. Really? How do you know if you don't try? Maybe fresh blood will bring the change we need. New ones wouldn't be quite so influenced by the "old" ones if the old ones were leaving soon.
