America has a democratic system which relies heavily on the elected officials to carry out the aims of the public. As the representatives' roles grow heavier the issue regarding the term they could serve drew more attention. The majority of the public is overwhelmingly in favor of posing a congressional reform of term limits, "Nearly 80 percent wanted to limit the number of terms for members of Congress to 16 percent that opposed the idea" (Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 74). The people believed that the lack of term limit made their representatives able to stay in Washington much longer than they would preferred. They stated that this very fact of people staying in power too long would endanger America's democratic institution by forging an aristocratic society. The opposition of this reform, however, argued that these representatives were elected by the people they are representing. If the majority of the people believed that he or she needs to be removed, they would have done so without the help of the term limit. The lack of term limit, according their view, did not threaten the democracy in the United States; quite contrary, it enabled the people to entrust their rights in the person they had the greatest confidence of voicing their opinions. This is a true reflection of the public opinion. They stated that if the public wants to elect that person than the democratic government has no right to deny their wish. The argument of the term limit then centers on the issue of whether it would promote democracy or hinder it. .
The supporter of the reform argued that by setting the ceiling of the maximum of years a person can serve in a position would bring higher efficiency into our government system and further promote the idea of democracy handed down to us by the Founding Fathers. The majority supported the term limit should be about six years (Coyne and Fund 25). The reason the proposal of term limit received such widespread support on the national level is because of the tradition Americans had.