Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69
Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70
There must be something about the conclusion of an election that brings up the subject of term limits. I wrote about it a couple of times a year ago and have said nothing about it since then. Now the Standard Examiner has an article saying that It’s time to reignite the debate over term limits. The article talks about previous efforts to enact term limits in the late 90’s. In the comments section for the article Tired Old Argument says:
Term limits basically says, we don’t trust the voters to make a good, informed decision.
What Tired Old Argument forgets is that in a republic, such as the one we live in, the very structure of government says that we should not trust the voters to be able to be adequately informed for most major decisions – that’s why they are supposed to delegate the task to their best and brightest (which is who they would elect in theory). It turns out that our history suggests that knowing when to replace their elected representatives is among the things that voters are not very adept at doing.
This years numbers are instructive on this point. Congress has been mired with approval ratings hovering near 10% for most of the last year. Logically this would suggest that we would have a high rate of turnover when elections come amidst such an approval rating. In fact, approximately 90% of our elected officials are returning to Washington (this is not counting those who are returning as lobbyists or in appointed positions). What is even more telling is that of the 6 of the 10% who are not returning to elected office retired voluntarily. When 90% disapproval results in 95% retention that suggests that the voters are not very adept at replacing their elected officials.
As Reach Upward so astutely articulated in last year’s discussion:
. . . it may be good to toss even great statesmen because the office is more important than any person that may hold it.
(I will be quick to point out that Reach had no committed position on the issue of term limits at that time.) I would love to hear from anyone on where they stand on the issue after our elections this year.
4 replies on “Post-Election Subjects”
Term limits attempt to treat a symptom rather than a cause. The symptom (heavily entrenched incumbents) does nothing to address what causes them to be entrenched. Corrupt party machinery constantly works to ensure that challenges to incumbents from one’s own party rarely stand a chance unless the incumbent has lost favor with the party leadership. Combine that with large financial interests hedging their bets with the incumbent and heavy gerrymandering in many states and you end up with candidates who are more-or-less anointed to rule by a select few party insiders.
I watched term limits get enacted in Nevada for all state offices. The only effect it had was forcing them to jump from office to office. Same players, different roles. It was hardly an improvement.
That’s interesting – the term limits in Nevada should not have had an impact yet – their term limits are structured as a lifetime ban after 12 years and the first 12 year increment is supposed to be completed and have an impact in 2010. (Maybe the information I have is not accurate.)
As for the issue of addressing a symptom rather than the cause, I agree that the cause is entrenched power within parties and that this treats the symptom, but sometimes treating the symptoms is the best approach to curing the disease. In fact, forcing turnover through an effective term limit law can potentially shake up the power structures and loosen the hold of entrenched interests.
Nice post David.
My position is that term limits isn’t the problem, but voter ignorance and apathy is.
As an informal poll, I’ve asked my fellow bus riders who their elected officials are. Most of them vote, and they don’t know what the role is of their elected officials, who their officials are, nor do they know what they do and whether they are effective or not.
That is why monumental dingbats such as Buttars, Bramble, Stephensen, and Kilpack can get elected to their senate seata without anyone asking “what have they done.”
I fully agree that voter apathy is a huge problem. Like Jesse said, term limits are addressing a symptom rather than the underlying disease. Voter apathy is such a huge problem that I can’t even begin to tackle it. It is possible that term limits could either discourage voter apathy (I can hope) or at least help to compensate for it in some small way.
(As I recall, in the discussion last year you also argued that term limits were not the problem – I think I agreed with you then too.)