Term Limits
- Thread starter alaskaguy
- Start date
In what way would you decide who chairs committees?
As far as your "more people running for office" rationale, I don't think this would lead to any great changes. The only two legitimate candidates would still be picked by the base of each party and we would have the same elections, just with different faces.
My prior response was hurried in an attempt to send it before I lost my signal.
Sorry, but much to my dismay I will have to exit this thread for now. As much as I would like to respond, the snow is interferring with my internet signal (I have satellite internet). We are having our first legit snow of the season.
Sorry, but much to my dismay I will have to exit this thread for now. As much as I would like to respond, the snow is interferring with my internet signal (I have satellite internet). We are having our first legit snow of the season.
Ahh, the snow is changing to freezing rain so I will attempt to proceed...
It should be obvious that people make decisions (vote) in terms with what they percieve to be their best interest (you may label this greed if you so prefer). And obviously, what is in someone's best interest may conflict with the national interest. If this were not the case, why can can't we reach a compromise on social security, and so many other issues?
The impact of endorsements is grossly exagerated in most cases.
Ahh, the signal is getting weak once again, so I will abrutly end here.
It depends. Often times the ideas of the general public are not especially well informed, and responding to political pressure can produce bad legislation.
One example is the rules regarding where sex offenders can live in Iowa. There was one offense that got everyone's attention, so the legislature had to hurry up and pass something so that they looked like they were addressing the problem and being tough on offenders. So, what we end up with is a feel-good law that has major enforcement problems and is therefore opposed by law enforcement, which has caused us to lose track of many offenders, and which has not been shown to in any way prevent the harm it was supposed to address. But... if you vote against it you love pedophiles, so it passed easily.
There are also situations in which everyone acting in the best interest of their district results in an outcome that is worse for everyone. Earmarks and excessive spending come to mind here. However, I wouldn't expect term limits to address this problem much at all.
I agree with everyone that it doesn't really solve all or possibly any of the problems. In a perfect world, I would like to see a line item veto and a balanced budget amendment.
Let me present a scenario....
Suppose you want to advance whatever your perception is of the public interest and do not care at all about procuring pork, or other material benefits for your district. Would you prefer a senior legislator who agrees with 80% of what you think is in the public interest and can further its enactment or a freshman legislator who shares your ideology but would have a limited impact on any legislation?
My point is that most voters prefer the senior legislator because they have the power to deliver far more than the freshman legislator. This seniority clout only widens when one considers many voters do care about the material benefits that accrue to their district and will vote to maintain as large of a share of possible by reelecting their senior legislators.
Suppose you want to advance whatever your perception is of the public interest and do not care at all about procuring pork, or other material benefits for your district. Would you prefer a senior legislator who agrees with 80% of what you think is in the public interest and can further its enactment or a freshman legislator who shares your ideology but would have a limited impact on any legislation?
My point is that most voters prefer the senior legislator because they have the power to deliver far more than the freshman legislator. This seniority clout only widens when one considers many voters do care about the material benefits that accrue to their district and will vote to maintain as large of a share of possible by reelecting their senior legislators.
I agree with this, and it seems it would be hard for an Iowan to disagree. Look at Harkin and Grassley. I know a lot of Iowans who continue to vote for both due to their seniority and power on Capitol Hill. If they aren't reelected the state will lose the clout in Washington to effect changes that will benefit Iowa.
This concern can be largely addressed by increased transparency with regard to things like earmarks and an active pursuit of the issue by outside groups. This would have the further effect of actually doing something about spending.
Also, I again have to ask if you have a better method for deciding committee chairs than seniority.
I'm not sure what "it" is. Is it campaign finance reform, term limits, or both?
Although term limits is not a cure-all it would largely solve the "senior clout" problem.
The fundamental reason I believe term limits should be adopted is that they would go a long way in addressing the inequalities in the distribution of legislative power. Sure each voting district in the House of Representatives has the same population, but some districts like Alaska have senior members which wield enormous power. Term limits would reduce the advantages of senority appreciably. Without term limits similarly sized populations have significantly unequal levels of legislative power and therefore legislative power per person is unequally distributed. Finally, decreasing "senior clout" would make it easier for Districts to oust ideoligically unsatisfactory incumbents because those Districts would not lose power relative to other Districts.
Most agree that senior legislators have far more power than junior legislators ("senior clout"). What strikes most as surprising is that this is not because seniority leads to better committee assignments. Length of tenure, not formal position has been found to be the main source of legislative power. Therefore, the method used to select committee chairs does not appreciably reduce "seniority clout."
Source: Congressional Careers, Contours of Life In the U.S. House of Representatives, John R. Hibbing, pp. 162-165.
I haven't gone to the trouble to look up your source, so I'll ask you, Why do senior members of congress have more power? Here are a few of my guesses and responses:
1. They get better committee assignments.
How else do you propose to decide who does what?
2. They are experienced and know what the heck is going on.
Is this not a valid reason for them to have more power?
3. They know more people.
Again, this seems to be a valid reason to have more power.
4. They have more clout with their respective party.
Maybe an argument here. However, there will always be party bosses that have a great deal of control over things.
I think the value of institutional knowledge is rather underrated by most proponents of term limits. Having been a part of a group without much if any institutional memory, the ISU Governments of the Student Body, I can attest to this. Our senior members were often more insightful and productive due to their experience. They remembered things like how the Crew team's budget was tight because we had just bought them a $26,000 boat the year before, how some organizations made it a habit of poorly planning come budget time and then coming later in the year to ask for more funds, or why a certain bylaws said what they did. Basically, the only source of institutional memory for GSB was our office manager. While I was there I stumbled upon $3,000 we had in an account that nobody even knew about. It had been put into that account prior to the arrival of our office manager.
Last edited:
Your analyis is fairly accurate. According to the paper I referenced, the reason senior members have more power is due to contacts, an established pattern of dealing with other legislators, and more familiarity with legislative procedure.
In any event there are emperical studies that support that "senior clout" is significantly reduced when term limits are enacted. Most of the studies focus on the California legislature.
In any event there are emperical studies that support that "senior clout" is significantly reduced when term limits are enacted. Most of the studies focus on the California legislature.
I have another solution. How about we put shock collars on our congress people, and have them wired to the internet, so that every time they do something fishy, unethical or with disregard to public opinion, we could shock them. That is freedom in action if you ask me.
Experience certainly is a virtue. However, I assume the ISU Student Government respresentatives serve one year terms and that the senior reps have been in office three years or less. This is a far different situation than it is in the U.S. Senate where Senators are elected for a six year term. Heck, it is even a far different situaion than what exists in either the House or the Senate since many of our legislators serve 20 plus years.
In terms of any loss of experience, it is important to define what sort of experience you would be concerned about losing. Since any year spent in government is a year not spent outside it, the real claim that experience in government is preferable to experience outside it? Is it?
I support term limits (for the U.S. Congress) because I see them furthering democratic equality. They do this by reducing legislative power across districts. Term limits diminish the advantages of seniority. Seniority makes it difficult to oust ideological unsatisfactory incumbents. In doing all this term limits would make our election choices far "freer."
Government corruption is caused mainly by the long term retention of power ( most politicians being extremely human human beings and not saints). The long term retention of power in politics is mainly due to the monetary advantage incumbents have and gerrymandering. The question is how can we diminish the likelihood of long term retention of power in government?
We have found that campaign finance reform doesn't work because political cash is too fungible. Term limits seems to be the next best way to reduce corruption in government.
Another alternative might be to pass a law requiring all congressional districts to have 4 sides of equal length, the only exception being a side that lies on a state boundary.
We have found that campaign finance reform doesn't work because political cash is too fungible. Term limits seems to be the next best way to reduce corruption in government.
Another alternative might be to pass a law requiring all congressional districts to have 4 sides of equal length, the only exception being a side that lies on a state boundary.
Huh? Is the law that you are advocating (requiring all congressional districts to have four sides of equal length) a measure to deal with gerrymandering?
Unfortunately, term limits would give lifetime bureaucrats even MORE power to influence policy. Some of the worst aspects of our government come to us courtesy of lifetime government employee(s).
Who do you think actually WRITES the laws, and administers the programs?
Who do you think actually WRITES the laws, and administers the programs?
You are assuming that the staff influence decreases over time. The opposite is the more likely case. Newcomer legislators are more likely to act on principle and shake things up against staff and bureaucratic advice.
I also don't buy that there would be a shift in power to the executive branch if term limits were adopted. Under term limits legislators will at least have nongovernmental expertise or will likely be career politicians rotating through different offices who have developed just as much expertise as they would have had without term limits.
