No, we already have term limits that are called “elections”

Lots of the people currently running our government are old and out of touch with the current day problems and current day people

They aren't limits at all, as they do not limit the time a person could hold a position. And the chance that a person in congress does lose their seat in an election is very low, as the re-election rate is over 90%.

🧠 Incumbency Advantage Is Not Democratic Neutrality

While elections technically allow voters to remove officials, the reality is skewed:

- Over 90% of congressional incumbents are re-elected—even in years of low public approval.
- Incumbents benefit from name recognition, fundraising networks, and gerrymandered districts, creating a near-impenetrable wall for challengers.

This isn’t a level playing field—it’s a system that rewards entrenchment over accountability.

---

🧬 Elections Alone Don’t Prevent Corruption or Stagnation

Long tenures can breed complacency, entitl…  Read moreement, and influence from special interests:

I would say tell them to look at the time they got into congress and most of the people there a long time ago are still there but now are old which shouldn't happen multiple people should get in that position, much younger and sharper minds not old people.

People in DC have been too long removed from the daily lives of the American citizen and no longer represent them. Instead they make money and often become corrupted.

While I understand the importance of elections, the retention rate of someone that is an incumbent is way too great and a tough hurdle to overcome for any opposing person. Politics was never intended to be a career path, and too many have made it such on both sides of the aisle.

Elections are not term limits, elections are voting for the candidate and then term limits is how long they are in office. Elections and term limits are different things.

Incumbents are reelected to Congress over 80% of the time. People often vote for the name with which they were most familiar. Most of the time people will say Congress is ineffective, but they do not have an issue with their Congresspeople. Term limits will stop the career politicians from making a fortune off of telling us they will fix our problems but never actually making the effort to do so.

Incumbency inherently reduces the effectiveness of elections as a term limit, to the point where our Congress is the oldest it’s ever been at this point in time.

4 years if they’re re-elected sure. But after that get them out of there. We have people that have been in office for 40 years still promising the same changes. Bring someone else in to get it done

Many times already seated politicians can continue to win elections on a name-known basis and serve indefinitely.

Incumbents have an inherent advantage over the other candidates because of instant name recognition. The system we already have doesn't encourage voters to learn more about other candidates which leads to the same person being elected their whole life.

Well the problem is that we have senators who have been in office for 60 years who have term limits on governor President and multiple other positions it is time to stop the corruption and enforce term limits in congress.

Older people typically tend to vote for other older people, and America has a large older population.

Elections only apply to the presidents, while others in the government serve for their life when there is no need.

These "elections" still allow a person to serve an unlimited amount of terms if they are repeatedly re-elected