Part of the problem with Washington is Washington. It's too easy for incumbents to win. They get all the money, they get all the free press, they get all the sway.
Yet term limits is a non-starter, and I agree with it. An electorate does have the power to limit someone's term in office. I fully accept the truth of that.
So maybe term limits aren't the way to go. How about a reset option?
This is what I'm calling the Incumbency Amendment to the Constitution.
The Incumbency Amendment
Section 1
All members of the House of Representatives sitting during a general election shall be ineligible for further re-election or appointment to the House, if in that election four-fifths of the sitting House of Representatives are re-elected.
Section 2
All members of the Senate sitting during a Federal election shall be ineligible for further re-election or appointment to the Senate, if in that election one-quarter of the sitting Senate is re-elected.
This is not an attack on a party or a ruling party. This is an assault precisely on incumbency.
All of the House is re-elected every two years. That's why the bar is this high. I'm open to it being higher - perhaps 85% or 90% is better. That's something to go to the history books and see what works best.
The Senate has only a third of its membership up for election at one time. That's why I have the lower bar there. It works out right now to 25 out of 33 elections per general election (25 is one-quarter of the sitting Senate, not the Senators up for re-election. However, the Senate has staggered terms as well. Senators wouldn't give up their seat until the end of their term, and thus the institutional and enduring character of the Senate will still be a force.
This also protects a newly elected Senator or Representative who is elected in a disqualifying election like this. They would not be sitting during the election, so they would not be forced to give up the seat at the expiration of their term.
It also allows a former Representative to be elected or appointed to the Senate, and vice versa.
So what do you think? Could it work? How do we get the honorable Congresspersons to pass it?
Update: According to this page, reelection rates would long ago have triggered this amendment. Every election since 1964 has elected incumbents at no lower a rate than 85%, and no election since 1982 has been lower than this threshold.
2nd Update: How about a Section 3?
Section 3
This amendment shall not be observed until the tenth year after any House elections disqualifying incumbents, and the twelfth year after any Senate election disqualifying incumbents.
In other words, if this amendment kicks the bums out, it can't be used against the House for another 10 years, and 12 years after it's used against the Senate.