We don’t need another election cycle like this one to understand the problem with Washington.

As is the practice in Washington, there are too many lawmakers arriving in Congress promising change, and then spending decades protecting the system that keeps them in power.

A recent Associated Press report on Democratic deliberations over House committee leadership offered a revealing look at the infamous dysfunction. Democrats are likely to take control of the House, but many of the lawmakers positioned to lead the most powerful House committees are the same faces who have held those positions for years.

Democrats are actually openly talking about whether to embrace term limits, but some of its most senior members are already dismissing the idea.

And that’s why congressional term limits are so desperately needed.

Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi has served as the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee since 2005. That’s more than 20 years.

Rep. Adam Smith of Washington has led Democrats on the Armed Services panel since 2011. Rep. Maxine Waters of California has held the top Democratic position on Financial Services since 2013. Others have occupied comparable leadership posts for nearly a decade.

Their longevity might demonstrate experience, to a point. It also illustrates how easily public service can become a permanent career, with leadership positions treated as possessions rather than responsibilities entrusted to elected representatives.

Congress, like all elected bodies, were intended to be citizen-governments, not eternal appointments for bureaucrats.

House Republicans generally limit lawmakers to three terms as committee chairs or ranking members. Yet, even that system is hardly a substitute for meaningful limits on congressional service, but it at least recognizes that leadership should not be an entitlement that comes with surviving long enough in Washington.

Republican House Majority Leader Steve Scalise says the limits create opportunities for younger lawmakers to rise. Democrats should listen. Their own members are making the case.

Rep. Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania says term limits could make Congress more vibrant. Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington argues that limits would help develop a deeper bench of leaders. Houlahan offered the most compelling argument in the AP report: “Endless is not the magic number.”

Colorado already understands why limits matter. Term limits for state and local offices have helped weaken the entrenched political relationships that can turn public service into a private club. Across the state, from the Legislature to city halls, limits have helped curb cronyism by preventing elected officials from holding the same offices indefinitely and building political fiefdoms around them.

It’s been a help, not a cure.

Term limits are no guarantee against corruption, incompetence or backroom dealing. President Donald Trump is a living illustration of that fact. But term limits are a necessary safeguard against the concentration of power that makes those abuses easier to sustain.

Washington has resisted that safeguard for too long. Americans have repeatedly expressed disdain for the idea of lifetime congressional seats. But incumbents remain extraordinarily difficult to dislodge, particularly in primaries, where a veteran lawmaker’s established network of donors, political allies and campaign cash can overwhelm challengers before voters have a meaningful choice.

The best solution would be a pair of constitutional amendments. One law should limit how long members of the House and Senate can serve. Just as critical would be another law imposing meaningful campaign finance restrictions that end bottomless political donations and anonymous spending designed to influence elections.

Some experienced lawmakers will be lost, and in some cases, that won’t be a bad thing. It’s the cost of opening our representative government to new voices, new ideas and leaders who are accountable to voters rather than to the finance machinery of Washington.

It’s a given that expecting this, or any future Congress, to pass a Constitutional amendment with a super majority in each house and the wait for ratification by 38 states is a lost cause. 

Instead, Colorado, next January, should lead a national effort to enlist 34 state legislatures to impose term limits through an amendment to the Constitution and then persuade four more to impose the amendment, bypassing Congress entirely.

Read more The history behind France’s proud tradition of protests

Read more Vance calls GOP criticism of Acton’s childhood trauma ad ‘disgusting’

Read more Denver judge rejects last-minute effort to cancel vote on graduated income tax measure