I am not a fan of term limits. It does not make sense to me to say that some people can't run for office, or for a particular office. Furthermore, it really does not make sense to tell the people that they can't have a particular person in office no matter how much they want that person.
The popularity of term limits is an indictment of our voters. Apparently, human nature results in a bias toward incumbents in the electoral process. If this is the case (as pretty much everyone seems to agree), it seems better to quantify and erode that bias rather to impose term limits. Imposing term limits is a form of “throwing the baby out with the bath water”.
My alternative is that, after having been elected a particular number of times, the percentage of votes required to win should increase. An election between two first-time candidates could be decided by a one-vote margin. Perhaps a candidate running for reelection the first time could have the same one-vote margin requirement. Maybe the second reelection would require a 0.25% margin, with a 0.5% for the third re-election, etc.
I’m sure many people would want to impose more than a one-vote margin even for the first re-election. That’s fine! I’m not trying to specify what the margins should be or when they should start. Research should be done on electoral patterns to determine what might be the right requirements. In my opinion, the requirements should not be set with the intent of giving challengers a 50% chance of upsetting incumbents. The incumbents have already demonstrated that the voting public chose them before and they have more experience typically, so most incumbents should be re-elected. What we’re trying to do is to reduce their percentage of success to the degree that the success results from voter failure.
Some people would probably say that it is unconstitutional to allow someone with fewer votes to win, but clearly it is less restrictive to require a higher margin from an incumbent than to ban that incumbent from running.
The people should be allowed to choose who they want to represent them. They should not be told that they do not have the right to vote for someone.
I don't know what the right percentages might be. There are no magic percentages, just as there is no magic number of terms in office relative to term limits. Researchers could study the possible impact of such a rule historically. But having such a rule might have changed how people would have voted in the past or how they will vote in the future, both in primary and main elections. To avoid an over-correction, I’d suggest establishing percentage thresholds lower than the data suggests. The percentages could be massaged over time to accomplish our goals. The percentages could be put up for a vote.
There was an interesting article about term limits in the Kansas City Star on June 17, 2012, citing work by Dr. David Valentine (http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles/critics-of-missouris-term-limits-say-political-deadlock-is-the-result/). Some opponents of term limits say:
ReplyDelete1. It has reduced the knowledge of legislators, increasing the number of mistakes and transferring power to regulators and lobbyists.
2. It has encouraged more politicians to become lobbyists.
3. There is more high-pressure politics and less bipartisanship because people have to make their mark fast, get the key committee position fast and don't have an incentive to build long-lasting relationships which require compromise with people who differ politically. This might contribute to gridlock.
4. Legislators may leave early or change their focus during their last term, thinking about what they will do next.
5. They may feel less accountable to voters (which could be either good or bad).
Proponents say:
1. Non-cooperative legislators turn over more quickly thanks to term limits.
2. People who otherwise would not be elected have an opportunity to present their ideas.
3. Although the article did not mention this, we should have a more politically savvy electorate with more ex-legislators among them.