Term Limits
This is the blogging equivalent of thinking out loud. Term limits: good idea or bad? At the Federal level, we already have term limits—for the President. I can’t see that it’s hurt us any. Why (or why not) have limits for Congresscritters and Senators?
I think it’s unlikely to happen, but it might make for interesting discussion.
April 28th, 2004 at 2:44 pm
We have term limits every election. The problem is elsewhere: voters, the election process and the media who report on politics.
The 19th (?) amendment needs to be revoked, allowing States to select Senators again, which would assure more turnover. The party-controlled ballot process needs overhauling, assuring more access by non-party people. Even if they don’t have a serious chance, their presence motivates changes. (The old “third parties find their ideas co-opted by the majors and then fade” theory.)
Last, the media does a shit-poor job. Locally, the daily paper moaned a few weeks ago about the lack of turnover on our City Council (several have served for three decades now!) and yet every election cycle, they support those same holdovers! Hypocrites! They make little to no effort to promote non-party choices, or even party-fringe choices. TV news is even worse.
Blogging is going to change that, but we’re a long way from being there still. I’m mulling how I can effect some change with my blog.
April 28th, 2004 at 2:46 pm
Oh! One more: as long as pols loot our pockets to fill their Treasury to hand out to their supporters and to bribe voters, it’s gonna be hard to change things. Money talks. It’s why Memphis continues to elect so many hack black Dems — they deliver freebies locally.
April 28th, 2004 at 4:14 pm
I think it’s certainly something that should be looked into.. for the House, yes, and possibly for the Senate.
Although part of the purpose of having Senators, as I understand it, is to provide somewhat of a “public face” for foreign relations. Since the duties of the senate include stuff like ratifying treaties and whatnot, it’s good if our foreign counterparts can expect that the guys that sign a treaty will be around to see it through — hence the longer term limits. So it might not be a bad idea entirely that they stick around longer than most.
Just some rambling thoughts off the top of my head.
April 28th, 2004 at 5:14 pm
Chris, where’d you get that idea about Senators being a public face for foreign relations? I don’t agree with that. The framers were pretty clear that foreign relations were the province of the executive. With the exception of up or down votes on treaties, the legislature wasn’t supposed to have anything to do with it.
I’ve always opposed term limits in the past, and still think that many kinds of limits are unconstitutional. However, I’ve changed my mind over the past year or so. I would amend the Constitution to require term limits. Importantly, however, I would give Presidents and Senators only one term each. I’d give representatives one 6-year term each (or possibly a 3 year term, but it couldn’t be 4 or 2, because I’d want them staggered, and it wouldn’t be fair for some states consistently to elect theirs in a Presidential year, and some not).
April 28th, 2004 at 5:29 pm
I think the cons of term limits outweigh the pros. Probably the biggest electoral reform we need, in my opinion, is the introduction of runoff elections. No more of this winning with 45% of the vote crap.
I’m on the fence on the State-appointed senators bit. On one hand, it makes sense, because the Senate is supposed to represent the states, not the people (which is why each state gets the same number regardless of population). However, I could see it getting ugly that way. We have a hard enough time getting decent justices appointed to the federal bench without partisan bickering. Imagine how Senate nominations would be.
I could live with State-appointed Sentors if the following conditions were met:
It may seem like stringent requirements, but I wouldn’t want a system in which a party could come to power and ensure that they remain in power beyond their elected terms by appointing such officials. I’d like to see safeguards to keep extremists out.
For the record, I’d like to see these requirements in the judiciary as well. Pickering never even would have been nominated if those requirements were in place.
April 28th, 2004 at 5:46 pm
What are the cons of term limits?
April 28th, 2004 at 6:39 pm
Thib: the cons are less-experienced Senators who don’t know their way around Washington, and who are therefore less-than-effective representatives for their constituents.
For that reason I’d go for fairly generous term limits, like four terms (Senators serve terms of six years). That would still prevent the likes of political fossils like Ted Kennedy and Strom Thurmond.
April 28th, 2004 at 6:41 pm
There’s a _lot_ of problems with IRV:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/stormydragon/15958.html
April 28th, 2004 at 7:14 pm
I want to say it was something I read in the federalist papers, which means it very well could have been a passing thought that was never truly implemented 🙂
April 29th, 2004 at 8:35 am
the cons are less-experienced Senators who don’t know their way around Washington, and who are therefore less-than-effective representatives for their constituents.
But the term limits keep EVERYONE less-experienced. Still, if we assume you’re right, is that a bug, or a feature? The way I see it, the job of a legislator is NOT to provide pork for his constituents, which is what most people think of when they think “effective representative.” I’m not saying that’s necessarily what you meant.
April 29th, 2004 at 1:49 pm
An additional “con” of term limits is in that case where you actually get an effective representative. If the constituents think he’s doing a good job, they can’t re-elect that representative even if they want to.
When you boil it down to its essence, term limits are undemocratic on their face. If you don’t like someone, vote them out; don’t expire them based on a completely arbitrary requirement. A call for term limits is essentially saying, “we don’t like these long-term incumbents, but we can’t beat them democratically, so let’s subvert the process.”
Term limits do cut both ways. The Republicans pushed for (and won) term limits after FDR won an unprecedented four consecutive terms. This hurt them, however, because shortly after this took effect they had a wildly popular president in Ike who could not run for re-election. This led to the Republicans losing the White House to Kennedy, something that wouldn’t have happened without term limits.
April 29th, 2004 at 2:01 pm
So in your opinion, is the 2-term limit for president a good thing or not? Also, do objections to term limits for legislators apply equally to the executive (they may not necessarily).
Finally, are term limits REALLY “undemocratic,” or do they “level the playing field?” After all, the incumbents have advantages, such as the bully pulpit and (in the case of Congresscritters) franking privileges.
May 1st, 2004 at 12:34 pm
Thib, again the problem isn’t the “bully pulpit,” but a press that seems to worship it. Let the press do their job of being skeptical and presenting other points of view and you balance it out.
On the other hand, term limits saved us the spectacle of Bill Clinton running for a third term, which he would have unquestionably done if he could have, scandals or not. He’d have dragooned his party into the effort as he dragooned them into saving his hide during impeachment. He would have done a bigger disservice to Dems than he’s already done. Imagine GW Bush on the campaign trail against Clinton….