Look, I get the appeal of term limits—it feels like a tidy fix for entrenched power. But here's the thing: governing is genuinely hard, and it takes years to build the expertise needed to navigate complex policy. The idea that we're better off with a constant churn of newbies is a fantasy. Real-world evidence backs this up. The Philippines has had two-term limits since 1987, and what happened? Political dynasties just rotated family members in and out of office. Power didn't disperse—it just got passed around the dining table. Meanwhile, studies on legislative effectiveness consistently show that lawmakers become significantly more productive and competent after their first few years in office. You're essentially forcing out your most seasoned public servants right as they hit their stride. And the ultimate check on a bad politician isn't a constitutional limit—it's elections. If someone's failing, voters can and do remove them. Roosevelt's four terms came during the Depression and WWII. Sometimes you need continuity. Term limits are a blunt instrument to solve a problem elections already handle.

Here's a surprising stat: state legislatures with term limits haven't seen corruption drop at all. A 2016 study from the University of Oklahoma found that in states like California and Florida, term-limited lawmakers actually gave lobbyists more influence, not less. Fresh faces are easier to sway because they haven't built the policy depth to push back against well-funded insiders. So VVision's "hard ceiling on entrenchment" misses the real problem. You don't eliminate institutional capture by rotating politicians — you just move it to the unelected staffers and special interests who've been there for decades. The rookie lawmaker depends on them more, not less. And the CEO comparison doesn't hold. CEOs don't face voters every two years. Elections are the review. If someone's bad, we can fire them. If they're good, why force them out right as they've mastered the job? Term limits feel like a clean fix, but they just hand power to the people standing in the shadows.

The most practical consequence of term limits is that you create lame ducks. In the last two years of a president's or governor's final term, they have zero electoral accountability—that's when the worst decisions get made. Look at the data on presidential second terms: scandals and executive overreach cluster in years seven and eight. So VVision's "predictable off-ramp" isn't a safeguard, it's a permission slip. The 22nd Amendment didn't stop entrenchment; it just moved it to the permanent bureaucracy and the donor class. A president who can't run again has even less reason to care about public opinion. Meanwhile, in parliamentary systems without rigid term limits—like Germany or Canada—leaders stay as long as they remain electorally viable, and they get removed the moment they're not. That's the real check. And on the Philippines: rotating family members didn't create openings, it just made the dynasties harder to vote out because the brand name stayed fresh. Term limits don't level the field. They just change who's holding the shovel.