Drew, good point, yes we do have elections. But, what happens is people gain power in Washington and get on committees that oversee spending, then they move more money back to their district, and in essence voters are 'paid' with pork, power expands, and corruption ensues. Then, corruption extends the longevity of the career by underhanded means.
In essence, to answer a question before it is asked, no, the majority voters cannot be trusted to overlook money in their pocket and do what is best in principle. I hate I have to say that, but it is true. 100 years ago that was not true. People were much more interested in politics and in what was going on in the meeting houses around them. Not anymore. They want their computers to work, TV's to be on, Nintendos and Xbox's to work, an easy job, government money pouring into their district for every cause under the sun, and fast food.
If that is happening, then the incumbents win and grow in power and build small empires in Washington because nobody else can afford to fight them and win. Then those politicians get so settled and so out of touch with the normal, working American that they start to make bad decisions. Decisions that are based on winning the next election as opposed to doing what is right.
Think of it. If a politician were to know that they could not be elected to that office again, how much more unencumbered would that politician be to make decisions based on what SHOULD be done instead of worrying about polls on his or her next re-election campaign?
The framers never meant for some senator or representative to be there for 20-40 years. They wanted a working person to go to Washington, bring in fresh ideas from home, stay a few years, then go back home and let someone else with fresh ideas come in. No career politicians.
I am for term limits because they would enforce that.
(OOPs, I broke my pledge. -- OK my pledge should have read PARTISAN politics, not politics in general.)
