Comments on: The Case Against Term Limits

By: Brian C

Brian C — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:41:12 +0000

In an ideal world, everyone who goes to the voting booth would have an excellent knowledge of every candidates’ qualifications, integrity, and behavior.

We do not live in an ideal world.

Incumbents have a political advantage at the voting booth. Plenty of studies confirm this. Also, time in office breeds corruption- not necessarily everyone, but far too many.
Many politicians will make promises of self imposed term limits when they first run. In fact a majority of elected officials that have been in for 8+ years at one point stated something like “I will not be a career politician” or “I only intend on serving one/two terms” and… well… breaking that promise didn’t end up hurting them.

The Utah Legislature repealed term limits in 2003. Beyond looking for politicians who simply state they won’t be career politicians, we need to reinstate term limits for all those who would otherwise compromise their integrity. The currently elected officials are not likely to vote for term limits, despite an opposing viewpoint from their constituents. I’d recommend that all delegates determine their respective candidates’ views on term limits, and vote accordingly.

By: Travis Grant

Travis Grant — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:57:05 +0000

James, you make a good point. I believe that I might address your comments by part three of this series. My response won’t directly address it, but it will.

By: James U

James U — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:25:02 +0000

Yes, term limits place the limit on the voter. Just like all constitutional clauses do. In fact, that’s the very purpose of a limited constitution–to place appropriate limits that take us out of the realm of straight democracy and place us in a system with what Madison calls “auxiliary precautions,” or added measures that restrict human action. But we don’t think this way anymore. Now we couch everything in terms of “individual freedoms,” like Ancient Greece, and we neglect the most important political action that ever occurs: statecraft. We’d be a lot healthier if we cooled down on individual rights and started thinking in terms of how best to divide power institutionally in government.

By: Snake Oil Baron

Snake Oil Baron — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:36:47 +0000

The problem I have with not limiting terms is that as a candidate who is favored by the media gains monetary ties for campaign funds (which become more valuable to the donors as the relationship need not end) and can begin to put his people in positions to conduct elections and control the legal system, the ability to even raise awareness about how bad the leader is become hampered.

Putin has been popular in Russia long after it should have been obvious that he is a disaster for the Russians and the region. Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe; they have control of the media, the electoral process and society in general. As a result, they only need to steal some of their mandate. The rest will come from those they fool and/or frighten into voting the right way.

They didn’t gain all this control overnight. Laws were changed, constitutions were amended, legal systems subverted, opposition voices silenced, poor people indoctrinated.

But then, I am pretty much losing faith in democracy. Sure, it is the “worst system except for all the others” but being the least crappy method of organizing a society just doesn’t cut it anymore. And as ancient Greek democracy and Roman republican values show, people eventually give freedom up. It might take centuries but eventually humans get the enslavement they want.

The answer, of course is to build Skynet and turn control over to super-intelligent toaster ovens.

By: Travis Grant

Travis Grant — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:25:34 +0000

See, here is where I disagree. You are arguing that the best cure for political apathy is to reduce people’s power in their vote. I would argue that it wrong. The best way to cure political apathy is by increasing the power in the vote. And in reality, we can’t do that, because just having access to voting as about as powerful as it can be. But by limiting people’s ability to vote will increase their apathy.

Why don’t people vote? Well, “I don’t like any of them” is a very likely answer. So, why add to the excuse list, “I like the guy we had in there before, but now I can’t vote for him.” The better way to generate healthy turn over (and increase voter turnout), is to elect honorable men. The same type of men that Beck asks us to look for, but not with term limites as the measuring stick.

By: Nelson Lee Walker

Nelson Lee Walker — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:57:41 +0000

The mere fact that Congresspeople have turned their jobs into careers and entitlements due to the apathy of the people is the strongest argument in favor of term limits. Does anyone really believe that congress should be reelected at a 95% rate?

Yes, we need term limits to control the way people vote. In fact, it is the only way to generate the healthy turnover as the Founders expected.