@ISIDEWITHQuestionsDomestic Policy11yrs ago

Should there be term limits set for members of Congress?

Members of the Chamber of Deputies can currently serve an unlimited number of four year terms. Senators can currently serve an unlimited number of eight year terms. Presidents can only serve 2 terms of 4 years. Proponents argue that term limits help fight corruption and impose an equilibrium of power in government. Opponents argue that term limits prevent qualified officials from extending their terms in office.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 122k Brazil voters.

89%
Yes
11%
No
81%
Yes
9%
No
8%
Yes, term limits will increase performance and prevent corruption
1%
No, officials gain valuable experience and become more effective representatives over time
0%
Yes, and decrease their salary and retirement benefits
0%
No, we already have term limits that are called “elections”
0%
Yes, term limits for the House but not the Senate

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 122k Brazil voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 122k Brazil voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Brazil voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @99YHSG4answered…2yrs2Y

Donald trump and prince Andrew is the policy of the game deceased

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Term Limits” news articles, updated frequently.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

House Democrats Filibuster Flip-Flop: Keep It When the GOP’s in Charge, Kill It When We Are

Filibuster for me, but not for thee. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), an outspoken critic of the Senate filibuster, indicated Monday that she will not support axing the procedural hurdle as long as Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. “Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now when the Senate has the trifecta? No,” the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “But had we had the trifecta, I would have been, because we have to show that government can deliver,” Jayapal added. The Senate filibuster rule, which requires a 60-vote threshold to end debate and pass most types of legislation in the upper chamber, is seen as the best chance Democrats have at blocking the adoption of President-elect Donald Trump agenda – with Republicans taking a 53-47 seat advantage in the Senate and expected to retain a slim majority in the House. Jayapal, as recently as September, was pushing to “abolish” what she called the “Jim Crow filibuster.” “The filibuster was originally created *by mistake* in 1806,” she wrote on X. “Every day we don’t abolish it is just as big a mistake.”The Washington Democrat dislikes that the procedural tool makes it difficult for progressives to ram their agenda through Congress. “It’s the filibuster OR an assault weapons ban. It’s the filibuster OR codified abortion access. It’s the filibuster OR raising the minimum wage. It’s the filibuster OR protecting voting rights. The choice is clear. Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster,” Jayapal tweeted. The progressive rep argued Monday that passing a liberal agenda would’ve “built some trust with the American people.”“If we had had control of the trifecta and gotten rid of the filibuster to pass minimum wage, to pass paid sick leave, to pass many of these things that are passing – abortion access – that are passing on ballot measures that are so popular … then I think we would have built some trust with the American people,” Jayapal argued.

▲  226 replies