Final answer:
The question of term limits for members of Congress and the president involves issues such as enhancing democracy, legislative expertise, and diversity. While there are positive and negative aspects to term limits, evidence for increased diversity is inconclusive and the effect on the balance of power is debated.
Step-by-step explanation:
The debate on whether members of Congress and the president should have term limits is centered on the potential advantages and disadvantages of such limitations. Proponents believe that term limits could enhance democracy by bringing fresh ideas and perspectives, increasing diversity, and reducing career politicians' chances of accumulating excessive power. It could also lead to more voter interest and electoral competition.
However, there are concerns that term limits might weaken legislative expertise, as reduced time in office could result in a lack of policy knowledge, leading lawmakers to depend more on lobbyists. This could shift the balance of power toward the executive branch and interest groups. In terms of achieving greater diversity in representation, there is no conclusive evidence that term limits significantly alter the composition of legislatures in terms of gender and minority representation.
State policies on term limits vary, with some enacting such provisions, which have led to increased turnover in legislatures. However, term limits have also been repealed or found unconstitutional in some states. Nationally, the movement against term limits is not comparable, possibly because of entrenched political interests and the notion that elections serve as natural term limits.