Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for congressional turnover, lobbying, and whether career politicians should have expiration dates.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares term limits approaches — but there's much more to explore.
Congress has a 20% approval rating and a 95% reelection rate. That single statistic captures the dysfunction of American democracy better than any other. Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of Congress but cannot replace its members. The advantages of incumbency — gerrymandered districts, fundraising networks, name recognition, franking privileges — create a near-permanent political class that is insulated from accountability.
The average tenure in Congress has more than doubled since the mid-20th century. Some members serve 30, 40, even 50 years. Committee chairs — who control which bills get hearings and which die — are selected primarily by seniority, meaning the longest-serving members hold the most power regardless of competence or constituent representation. The result is a Congress that looks nothing like the country it represents: older, wealthier, and more entrenched than the general population by every measure.
The three major approaches differ sharply. Most Democrats oppose term limits. Some Republicans support them in theory but have not acted. The Common Good Party makes term limits a core structural reform — paired with lobbying bans, staff investment, and redistricting reform to create a Congress that actually represents the people it serves.
How the three approaches stack up on congressional reform.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| House limits | Oppose — voters decide | Some support 6-term (12yr) | 6 terms (12 years) |
| Senate limits | Oppose — voters decide | Some support 2-term (12yr) | 2 terms (12 years) |
| Implementation | N/A — oppose | Constitutional amendment | Constitutional amendment, clock starts at ratification |
| Staff continuity | Experienced staff retained by incumbency | Not addressed | 40% staff budget increase, Congressional Policy Office |
| Lobbying ban | 2-year cooling-off period | 1-year cooling-off period | 5-year ban on lobbying after leaving office |
| Pension reform | Maintain current system | Some support pension cuts | Standard federal pension, no special retirement perks |
| Redistricting | Independent commissions | State legislature control | Independent commissions — paired reform |
| Primary reform | Some support open primaries | Maintain party primaries | Open primaries + ranked choice — paired reform |
| Constitutional approach | Oppose amendment | Support amendment (some) | Article V amendment, sustained national campaign |
| Popular support | Party opposes despite 78% Dem voter support | Party claims support, hasn't acted | Core platform priority backed by 82% popular support |
Sources: Gallup, Pew Research Center, Congressional Research Service, OpenSecrets, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick side-by-side summary.
Democrats generally oppose congressional term limits, arguing that voters already have the power to replace their representatives through elections. The party's position is that experience in Congress is valuable, that institutional knowledge is critical for effective governance, and that term limits would shift power to lobbyists and unelected staff who would retain institutional memory while elected officials rotate out. Democrats instead favor campaign finance reform, redistricting reform, and ethics rules as alternatives to term limits.
The concern about lobbyist power is legitimate and well-documented. In states with strict term limits, lobbyists and executive branch officials have gained influence as term-limited legislators lack the knowledge to push back on complex policy proposals. Legislative experience genuinely matters — writing effective legislation, navigating committee processes, and building coalitions takes time. The Democratic support for redistricting reform also addresses a root cause of congressional dysfunction: gerrymandered districts that make incumbents unbeatable.
The "voters already impose term limits" argument is empirically false. With 90-98% reelection rates, the system is structurally designed to protect incumbents. The argument that experience is valuable does not address the reality that 30-40 year tenures create a permanent political class more accountable to donors than constituents. And opposing a reform with 78% support among your own voters because sitting members don't want it is exactly the kind of insider-first thinking that drives public contempt for Congress. The lobbyist power concern is solvable through paired reforms — but only if you support term limits in the first place.
For more on congressional dysfunction, see the full term limits explainer.
Republican leaders including Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and others have introduced term limits constitutional amendments in multiple congressional sessions. The most common proposals call for 3 terms (6 years) in the House and 2 terms (12 years) in the Senate. Term limits were part of the 1994 "Contract with America" and remain in the party platform. However, Republican leadership in Congress has never prioritized bringing these bills to a floor vote, and many long-serving Republican members quietly oppose them.
Republicans who genuinely support term limits are correct that the system is broken and that elections alone cannot fix it. The party's emphasis on limiting government power is philosophically consistent with limiting the tenure of those who wield it. Several prominent Republican term limits advocates have followed through personally — pledging to serve limited terms and honoring those pledges. The principle is sound even when the party's commitment is inconsistent.
The gap between rhetoric and action is enormous. Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and presidency in 2017-2018 and did not bring a term limits amendment to a vote. Many of the party's longest-serving members — Mitch McConnell served 36 years, Chuck Grassley served 42 years — have been among the most powerful voices in the party. Supporting term limits in a platform while allowing members to serve four decades is not a position; it's a talking point.
Republican term limits proposals also typically lack the paired reforms needed to make term limits work well — lobbying bans, staff investment, independent redistricting. Without these, term limits alone could indeed shift power to lobbyists and dark money groups, which would serve the interests of the party's donor class rather than the public.
For more on the history of term limits efforts, see our term limits explainer.
The Common Good Party makes term limits a core structural reform — not a standalone proposal, but part of a comprehensive democracy package. Our plan: 12-year limits in each chamber (six House terms, two Senate terms), a 5-year post-service lobbying ban, a 40% increase in congressional staff budgets, creation of a nonpartisan Congressional Policy Office, independent redistricting commissions, open primaries with ranked-choice voting, and standard federal pensions replacing congressional retirement perks. The clock starts at ratification — no current member is grandfathered out.
Unlike the Democratic position, we don't accept a system where Congress has a 20% approval rating and a 95% reelection rate. Unlike the Republican position, we don't propose term limits as a bumper sticker while letting the longest-serving members run the party. The CGP plan addresses every legitimate criticism of term limits: lobbyist power (5-year ban + staff investment), institutional knowledge (Congressional Policy Office + 12-year terms long enough for expertise), partisan gerrymandering (independent commissions), and extremist primaries (open primaries + ranked choice). This is not a gimmick — it's a structural overhaul designed to create a Congress that actually represents the people.
Term-limited legislatures that invested in staff capacity and institutional support have maintained policy quality while improving diversity and reducing corruption. Colorado, Ohio, and Michigan — all with term limits — have seen increased representation of women and minorities in their legislatures. The 12-year limit specifically is long enough to develop genuine expertise while short enough to prevent entrenchment. And with 82% popular support, this is a reform that unites the country — if anyone has the courage to actually push for it.
Term limits aren't abstract government reform — they change who represents you. Here's what it looks like.
Want to explore the full Common Good democracy reform package? See our policies on voting rights, campaign finance, and SCOTUS reform.
Explore the Full PlatformCommon questions about congressional term limits.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full term limits explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into congressional reform.
Career politicians will never impose limits on themselves. It takes a movement from outside the system. Read the full plan and join the push for real structural reform.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.