The Understanding Project
  • Logic
  • About
  • Author
  • Books

Understanding My Position On Term Limits

6/21/2011

 
Today I have compiled some of the arguments I have heard for and against the institution of term limits.

Some people are against term limits because of the “lame duck” effect. An official on his last term has nothing left to lose by acting badly, so the reasoning goes, so we need to continue to offer them the possibility of being elected for future terms as incentive to behave well. This is why proponents of term limits have created alternative means of producing incentive, such as a pension contingent on a referendum. Under this system, at the end of one’s last term, a question is put on the ballot as to whether one is deserving of whatever the standard pension is. This could be paid for either by the federal government or by the state in question. Another system would be to cap only the number of consecutive terms, but leave open the possibility of coming back in the less immediate future.

Some people are against term limits because they limit true democracy; they prohibit the reelection of officials even when effective and highly popular. Thus, term limits seem to go against the very concept of self-government and the idea that it is the people who have the right to pick their own leaders. Supporters of term limits argue that historically, the average citizen has been shown to be highly manipulable and politicians (and even certain non-elected appointees) with long careers become ever more entrenched. Incumbents – even mediocre ones – are hard to unseat. Many supporters of term limits distrust direct democracy and see term limits as merely an extension of the principles of government our republic was based on.

Some people against term limits claim that to be a good representative, one needs to serve at least a few terms to build up the relationships, experience, and clout necessary to be effective. Supporters of term limits counter that it is only in an adversarial environment wherein each representative attempts to push his/her agenda (and those of his/her district) onto the country as a whole rather than working together that such things become important. If every district had terms limited by the same amount, no district would be at a disadvantage by having an inexperienced representative.

I always liked the idea of term limits because:

First, it makes it harder for a slim majority to maintain its hold on power while abusing the minority. Incumbents are hard to unseat, but with all new people up for election, every election is a potential opportunity for the minority to scrape together enough votes to win. This will “mix things up” every once in a while and so help to prevent one-party rule.

Second, even good people can let their thinking get into a rut and term limits will introduce some “fresh blood” and theoretically, fresh ideas.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, government will no longer attract career politicians that want to spend their lives ruling others (also puts them in a position to accept bribes) and instead will attract people who just want to make a difference and then go back to their regular lives with the rest of us.

Have I missed anything important? Having trouble understanding my position? Agree? Disagree? I want to understand you. Let the discussion commence.

Harrison link
6/22/2011 03:13:51 am

While I like the idea of term limits in that it helps to minimize entrenched power in office, I do believe people get the government they deserve via the ballot box so I am against term limits. Term limits are meant to help remedy the flaw in humans of not paying attention to what's going on (not voting or re-electing the same person over and over again due to inertia). What I think, instead, is to limit how much money an incumbent can raise which is the biggest obstacle to seeing challengers win office. This is problematic, too, as courts have held that raising money is free speech in effect.

I think if money was reduced in politics then you would see fewer politicians getting re-elected.

daniel noe link
6/22/2011 03:40:26 am

This is probably true - that is, if only incumbents were so restricted and not newcomers - but it is for just the reason you pointed out (money=speech) that I think term limits are the better way to go.

Sally
8/2/2011 09:04:48 am

The problem with term limits is that every elected official is now worrying about re-election about mid-term, meaning that close to nothing gets done, and the posturing begins. Outcomes include bogus legislation (tryng to make a name for oneself while in office), and no compromise stances (trying to stick up for the party while you're in there). There is much to be said for relationships, diplomacy, trust which fosters compromise (can only come with time), and the understanding that one's elected JOB is still voted on every year. Term Limits - NO; Voters exercising their right to choose - YES.

Sally
8/2/2011 09:15:47 am

I meant the elected officials are voted in every term....this is the time for voters to exercise their rights.

daniel noe link
9/21/2011 05:05:29 am

Sally, I'm a little confused. Every official worries about re-election mid-term now. This is what term limits would eliminate. There would be less incentive to "stick up for the party" or "make a name for oneself", not more.


Comments are closed.

    Author

    Hi, I'm Dan. I like chocolate, hiking, and politics.

    Archives

    November 2019
    April 2019
    February 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    January 2016
    May 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    February 2012
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010

    Categories

    All
    Abortion
    Al Gore
    Anarchy
    Animals
    Ann Coulter
    Anti-Semitism
    Approval Rate
    Barack Obama
    Bias
    Bill Clinton
    Budget Deficit
    Bush Bashing
    Bush-Bashing
    Bush-bashing
    Capitalism
    Center
    Christmas
    Civility
    Code Words
    Coffee Parties
    Collectivism
    Compromise
    Conservative
    Constitution
    Court Rulings
    Culture
    Debate
    Democrats
    Dick Cheney
    Discrimination
    Donald Trump
    Drew Weston
    Economy
    Education
    Environment
    Eric Holder
    Euthanasia
    Experience
    Flag Burning
    France
    George W Bush
    Glenn Beck
    Global Warming
    Health Care
    Hillary Clinton
    Historical Narrative
    Holiday
    Homosexual
    Huffington Post
    Humor
    Hypocrisy
    Immigration
    Independent
    Insult
    Insurance
    Iraq
    Israel
    Jared Loughner
    Jimmy Buffet
    John Kerry
    John Mccain
    Jon Stewart
    Joseph Stark
    Journalism
    Judith Curry
    Julian Assange
    Koran
    Liberal
    Libya
    Marginalization
    Marketing
    Marriage
    Media
    Memes
    Mike Huckabee
    Military
    Mit Romney
    Monopoly
    National Debt
    Occupy Wall Street
    Osama Bin Laden
    Partisanship
    Political Spectrum
    Pragmatism
    Prejudice
    Privacy
    Psychology
    Rachel Maddow
    Racism
    Recession
    Religion
    Republicans
    Rights
    Rush Limbaugh
    Sarah Palin
    Sean Hannity
    Semantics
    Sex
    Sexism
    Socialism
    Sources
    State Rights
    State Secrets
    Stephen Colbert
    Suicide
    Taxes
    Tea Parties
    Term Limits
    Theory
    Tom Tancredo
    Torture
    Unions
    Van Jones
    Wikileaks

    RSS Feed

Please check out my books!

  • Logic
  • About
  • Author
  • Books