Home > Student Contests

Student Contests

The Permanent Starting Block: Why Democracy Demands a Finish Line

by Rohan Sathish Babu

In a fair race, the finish line exists to make sure that no champion stays on the track forever. But in the United States Congress, we have effectively abolished the finish line and handed the winners a permanent lane. Imagine a competition where the incumbent is given a five-second head start and the finest equipment, while the younger, faster challengers are forced to run uphill in heavy boots. We wouldn’t call that a “race”; we would call it a coronation. Yet, this is the current state of our democracy. When I walked into a local town hall meeting with my dad last year, I didn’t see a representative fighting to earn my family’s trust; I saw a politician who seemed to view his seat as a deed he owned rather than a lease he had to renew. On the drive home, I discovered the “94% Paradox”: in the 2022 midterm elections, 94.5 percent of U.S. House incumbents who ran for reelection won (Johnson). In a country that prides itself on being a meritocracy, our leadership has become a closed circle. If almost everyone in Congress is guaranteed to keep their job regardless of the nation’s direction, how can we say our elections are truly competitive?

If we want the American system to actually thrive, we have to stop letting elections act as a permanent shield for career politicians. We need to break that cycle. Of course, any change has to be smart, we can’t just throw out everyone who knows how to get things done, but at the same time, we can’t keep choosing safety over progress (Saturno).

The biggest supporter in this political shield isn’t actually popularity, it’s the money. We call it an “Incumbency War Chest” and the numbers from OpenSecrets prove just how lopsided it is. Incumbents routinely raise and spend millions more than their challengers (“Reelection Rates”). This leads to a financial gravity that pulls every dollar toward the person already in power. It effectively silences new voices before they can even get their message out. When one person controls all the cash, “choice” is just a word on a page. This massive money gap is why House incumbents keep winning over 90 percent of the time (Johnson). When being a politician turns into a lifelong career, lawmakers stop worrying about our problems and start focusing on building a fortress to protect their own jobs.

These career-long terms create what I call the “Washington Web.” Data from OpenSecrets shows that lobbying spending in the U.S. has now passed over $4 billion (“Lobbying Data Summary”). Think about it: when a lawmaker runs a powerful committee for twenty or thirty years, they aren’t just working; they’re building deep bonds with the very lobbyists they’re supposed to be watching. Of course, everyone has the right to talk to their government, but it gets dangerous when a politician’s focus shifts. They stop caring about “kitchen-table” issues for families and start worrying about “boardroom” priorities for their biggest donors. Term limits would act like a “reset” button. They would snap these webs and force the power back where it belongs: the hands of the citizens.

On the other hand, critics do have a good point. Running a country of 330 million people isn’t exactly an entry-level job. According to the Congressional Research Service, senior members hold onto “institutional knowledge” basically, they’re the only ones who know the complicated rules of the House (Saturno). Whether it’s balancing a massive federal budget or negotiating treaties with other countries, that kind of judgment usually takes years to develop. The fear is that if we kick everyone out too fast, Congress becomes a ship without a rudder. We’d be left drifting, forced to rely on unelected staff members who were never actually chosen by the voters.

This is exactly why we need a “middle ground.” If we limit House members to six terms and Senators to two terms, twelve years total, we hit the perfect balance. A decade plus change is plenty of time to learn the ropes and lead a committee, but it also guarantees there’s an actual end date. This isn’t just some random theory, either. We can already see this model working in the fifteen states that currently use term limits (“The Term-Limited States”). According to research from the Brookings Institution and the Cato Institute, these limits actually work. They increase turnover and make sure the people representing us are a more diverse group, not just the same faces for forty years (Mann and Ornstein; Crane and Samples 91-98).

To me, this isn’t just a political debate. It’s personal. My generation is basically standing on the sidelines watching a game that never lets us in. We’re the ones who will eventually inherit the massive national debt and the long-term consequences of the policies being made right now. It’s frustrating to look at the data, too. According to Gallup, public approval of Congress is usually under 30 percent, yet we keep reelecting the same people at a 90 percent rate (“Congress and the Public”). That’s a huge disconnect. It creates this feeling of hopelessness, like the “ladder” of leadership is missing all its bottom rungs, and there’s no way for new ideas to actually get to the top.

I keep thinking about attending another town hall ten years from now. My biggest hope is that I don’t see the same exact name on the banner. I want to see a system where being a politician is a season of service, not a lifelong career. We don’t have to choose between experience and new ideas; we can have both. If we finally clear the starting block and let the competition happen, we don’t lose anything. Instead, we gain the energy and the fresh perspectives of a democracy that’s been holding its breath for way too long. It is time to actually let the race begin.

Bibliography:

“Congress and the Public.” Gallup, 2026, news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx. Accessed 21 Feb. 2026.

Crane, Edward H., and John Samples. “Term Limits.” Cato Handbook for Policymakers, 7th ed., Cato Institute, 2009, pp. 91-98, www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policymakers-7th-edition-2009/term-limits. Accessed 21 Feb. 2026.

Johnson, Cheryl L., compiler. Statistics of the Congressional Election of November 8, 2022. Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, 28 Feb. 2023, clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/2022/statistics2022.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar. 2026.

“Lobbying Data Summary.” OpenSecrets, 2026, www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/summary. Accessed 1 Mar. 2026.

Mann, Thomas E., and Norman J. Ornstein. “Limiting Terms of Office for Members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives.” The Brookings Institution, 2021, www.brookings.edu/articles/limiting-terms-of-office-for-members-of-the-u-s-senate-and-u-s-house-of-representatives/. Accessed 1 Mar. 2026.

“Reelection Rates Over Time.” OpenSecrets, 2023, www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/reelection-rates. Accessed 12 Jan. 2026.

Saturno, James V. “The Legislative Process on the House Floor: An Introduction.” Congressional Research Service, Report 95-563, 14 Dec. 2022, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/95/95-563. Accessed 23 Feb. 2026.

“The Term-Limited States.” National Conference of State Legislatures, 2026, www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/the-term-limited-states. Accessed 14 Feb. 2026.