This assignment is about term limits for legislators. Just to be clear, term limits are different from "terms". In every state, every legislator serves for a specified term, usually 2 or 4 years. At the end of that term, if s/he wants to remain in office, s/he must run for reelections. Term LIMITS limit the number of two or four year terms that a legislator may serve (for instance, a state may say that a House member may serve no more than 4 2-year terms--or 8 years--after that, they may not run for reelection, no matter how popular they may be).
As we discussed in class, about 1/3 of the states limit the time that state legislators can serve in the legislature. Some limit them consecutively, some over a lifetime; some let legislators move from one house to the other, others do not. Most of these term limits were instituted through voter initiative.
Here is a chart showing the current status of term limits:
http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/legisdata/chart-of-term-limits-states.aspx
Arguments for term limits include that they reduce corruption, create citizen legislators, increase diversity in the legislature, and create more competitive elections. Arguments against include that they put more power in the hands of the governor, the unelected bureaucracy, and lobbyists, that they reduce the quality of those seeking office, and that they do NOT increase diversity or competition. Further, opponents argue that they are inherently undemocratic, as they take choice away from voters.
This is a good summary of arguments on both sides (be sure to click both tabs): http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/philosophical-political-theory/house-would-enforce-term-limits-legislative-branch-government
Here is a link to a short article against term limits: http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/07/the_case_against_legislative_t.html
Here is a link to a short piece in favor of term limits (though they focus on the national level, the arguments aren't that different at the state level):
http://termlimits.com/answers.htm
You can find a ton of arguments out there on related issues. Indeed, part of your assignment is to find sources that make sense rather than any random stuff out there on the Internet. You can find pieces on how term limits impact women candidates, how they affect competition, their impact on the minority party in a state, and much more. Assignments are due at 1:00 pm on Monday, October 7.
Your task is to write about whether you think legislative term limits would be a good idea for West Virginia. Better answers use reason and evidence, and they also address the comments of your colleagues.
As a citizen of West Virginia, born and raised, I would like to see WV remain a state that does not recognize and enforce term limits. There are a few specific reasons I am not in favor of term limits, and some of these reasons were cited in the above article from www.cleveland.com. First of all, I agree that if a legislator is doing a poor job or is not adequately representing the state, it is the citizens duty to not reelect said legislator. 2 or 4-year election periods are the perfect opportunity for citizens to remove an ill-fitting legislator from his/her seat. Furthermore, if an incumbent has a fantastic reputation for supporting the state, the citizens have the opportunity to reelect said incumbent until he/she no longer runs for reelection. A perfect example exists in the state of West Virginia; Robert C. Byrd was reelected so many times because WV citizens loved the work (and particularly the fundraising) he did for the state. This point is even emphasized by James Madison, who considered the idea of term limits and eventually rejected the idea: "A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent reelections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members, and the less the information of the bulk of the members the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them" (Federalist Papers #53, http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa53.htm).
ReplyDeleteAlso, I believe term limits have a tendency to restrict an elected official from accomplishing any long-term or controversial policy change. The most obvious example of this lies in the executive branch of the federal government. The President of the United States only has a limited amount of time to try to implement any kind of policy change, and, as we can see through the recent government shutdown, the President often encounters a lot of ideological roadblocks. Perhaps if the President had more time to adjust his policy changes or additions (with consideration of opposing viewpoints), he would be able to implement said policies. If, say, a Senator had a term limit such as the President, he may not have enough years in office to substantially improve or affect his/her state.
I agree with you. Term limits are somewhat created by the voters. If they do not want to re-elect a candidate then they don't. Your point about Senator Byrd is a prime example of a politician being re-elected many times, and relating to your comment about presidential term limits, Franklin Roosevelt is another example of an accomplished encumbant who was re-elected multiple times. If a person in office is competant and doing a great job, why kick them out? If they can do the job they are supposed to do effectively, then it makes no sense to limit them to just 8 or 12 years. Imagine how poor WV would be if Senator Byrd had not brought all the funds into our state over the years.
DeleteI completely agree with Paige and Zachary. Robert C Byrd is a great example for WV, as to why we should not enforce term limits. If a politician is being reelected it is obviously for a reason.
DeleteI fully agree with this statement. I believe that West Virginia has and still is doing a good job by not having term limits for its congress. This is because I also think that it is the duty of West Virginia's citizens to decide who gets elected or re-elected. If the people of West Virginia decide that they want to re-elect a candidate, well then that it is because the people of West Virginia have decided that the said candidate did a good job providing service to the State of West Virginia. If the said candidate did not do a good job for the state, than the people are most likely going to act on that and not vote him back into office. I also agree with the idea that term limits limit democracy. This is because I believe that they take away the rights that citizens have to vote for the candidate of their choosing. No one wants to be forced to vote for someone new if they already like what the current candidate has done for their state.
DeleteSenator Byrd did amazing things for our state financially, and he was very in tune with the citizens because of the lack of term limits West Virginia has as a state. I know many people who continually reelected him because of his effort to gain essential funding for programs.
DeleteI certainly agree with your point that certain representatives are good for certain states no matter how long.Senator Byrd is a prime example of a representative that was a perfect fit for the state he was elected to and is shows as the people continuously vote for him.
DeleteWhenever there is a debate about limiting or expanding term limit for legislatures there will always be two sides to it. No matter what happens during an individual’s tenure in office, someone will be displeased and happy with his actions. I think that in the state of West Virginia there should be term limits but to a certain extent. I think that the limit should be of substantial time. I would say that in my personal opinion that 12 years would be justified.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that I decided to have term limits is that there needs to be a ceiling. Eventually there needs to be some type of change in the legislature. No person should be in office forever. Our founding fathers never envisioned our government to be having career politicians like we have today. It was for the most part supposed to be a part time job. The first president of the United States, George Washington said in his farewell address that there needs to be a limit on how long a president can be in office.
On the other hand my reason for having such a high term limit is that some legislatures are really good for their district and constituents. In my home state of Massachusetts, the representative for the first district of Essex county (where I live) is Michael Costello. He has been in office for 12 years since Massachusetts has no term limits. He has been very influential and beneficial person to my hometown of Newburyport. He was really helped the education (getting aid for a bigger budget), reviving our famous waterfront and really improved public safety. Now if Costello’s term was limited to a six or four year term limit would not have been able to accomplish the entire things he did for my district and my city.
There needs to be an overall term limit for state representative in West Virginia but it should be of a substantial amount of time.
I never considered the founding fathers thing. Good point. Brings up for things to consider, i thought i was sure on no term limits, but it starts to sway my decision a little.
DeleteI also have never considered this idea as a reason for term limits. We are able to keep tradition in the US by setting term limits as the founding fathers wanted but we also get new thoughts and ideas and room for change because of the term limits set and the new people in office. I think the founding fathers had the right idea when they agreed with the idea of term limits.
DeleteI think Congressional seats should work in the same way we do presidential elections (a two term cap), but slightly extend the terms to make it reasonable. I saw Paige's comment above that the voters should decide if their legislators are doing a good job and should stay in, which would be fine if gerrymandering wasn't a thing. Half the reason that some of these Congress members stay in their seats as long as they do is because they re-draw their district lines to outnumber their opposition's possible votes. Michele Bachmann is a perfect example: she would have lost her previous re-election had she not had her district redrawn in her previous term. She's arguably one of the most vilified and ineffective Congressional members in history. I understand your point, but even if citizens don't approve of their representatives/senators (such as Bachmann), because of what our system currently allows, it's incredibly hard to vote them out if they can just get rid of constituents that won't vote for them.
ReplyDeleteAs Steve said, our government was never designed to cope with career politicians like her, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, etc. Representatives especially spend most of their two year terms running for re-election. It's the reason that so many politicians will pander to their base voters instead of actually doing anything; they're fearing for their jobs. Two years is actually an incredibly short term, considering that elections take up to a year to prepare for. How can we expect anything but career politicians with those rules? I would say extend the terms of representatives to four years, and only allow one re-election. However, to prevent career politicians from taking up valuable governmental space for potentially eight years, I'd also have a federal redrawing of district lines for each member based on voting trends, making them as close to equal party representation as possible. A sort of "impeachment" system for inept politicians would also be nice, but that's a much more complicated proposition. (As for the Senate, I'd also impose a term limit, but I don't really think that the Senate is the main issue here, so I've left them out of the discussion.)
I just don't think that it's a good idea to allow unlimited re-elections when the people in those positions of power are also able to make it nigh on impossible to lose re-election. Also, with a two-year term, all these career politicians will ever do with their time is prepare for the next election, which leads to pandering bullshit like the current faux-outrage from a small group of the Republican Party over the ACA. They aren't fighting for their constituents' overall beliefs, they're fighting for re-election votes from their far(ther) right constituents. The benefits of term limits significantly outweigh the downsides in my opinion, and I don't think our country would be in a shutdown over absolutely nothing right now if the citizens had more power over these processes.
I do believe it would be a good idea for West Virginia to have legislative term limits. By putting in term limits, this would eliminate any bad use of power over a long period of time by a particular legislature. What I mean is that although there may be a few circumstances were a legislature belongs in office for more than what the limit is, most of the time, an 8 year period or whatever it may be is plenty of time. After only so long can one man or woman continue to succeed and carry out the high role that this job entails while pleasing the citizens.
ReplyDeleteWith having term limits put into place, this would allow for new ideas, leaders and a variety of different people to come into office. By keeping the same man or woman in office for however long they want, bearing they keep winning the elections, then they may become too familiar with how things are run and may become corrupt. This is something that happens in the government far too much already and term limits is defiantly something that may reduce it.
Although West Virginia isn’t the largest or most populated state in the country, there is still a lot happening with a diverse group of people. If term limits aren’t applied to legislatures, then the diversity within the legislative branch can remain low as it may not be a correct representation of the citizens.
Arguments can be made both ways with this question, but more than less times, a term limit is needed for the people, the government and for not necessarily the right decision to be made every time, but for the best decision to be made. If that “best” decision keeps coming from the same person year after year then the problem may never be fixed. By putting the term limit into place, this issue would be reduced as the “best” decision by the same person can only be made a few times until a new legislature comes into office due to the past legislatures limit being up and can find the real solution to whatever the problem may be.
I completely agree that spending too much time in the legislature can cause a corrupt official, however I don't know that familiarity would be the cause of corruption. In my opinion, it is the length of time in office itself that can cause an official to be corrupt. Picture being a legislature for 15+ years, this is a lot of responsibility and weight on your shoulders that could easily force any professional into a burnt out state. Being burnt out and continuing work results in a sub par performance, and could drive even the most honest government official to become self-fulfilling and corrupt in their motives while in office.
DeleteI agree with your argument for the most part. However I think that maybe an elder member of the legislature might have more experience and knowledge on how to make the "best" decision for all parties involved than a brand new member. Now I know that not all elder legislators will do that but there is a good possibility some might. Experience can go a long way. Also if the legislators are repeatedly being handed these decisions, then being in office a little longer will give them the chance to learn from their mistakes.
DeleteI disagree with what you said regards to bringing new ideas, leaders or a variety of people. I really believe that if that person who have been in the office long term is doing a good job then why limit them if they are going to continue to produce for you. I understand where the corruption comes into play but if the corruption was truly an issue it would be recognized and the person wouldn't get re-elected.
DeleteI disagree with your argument about corruption, and about term limits in general. Why would you not permit an official to continue to run if they are popular in their state? Just because they continue to get re-elected does not guarantee they will become corrupt. Experience and tenure are often good things amongst officials, not a signal for corruption. If an official was corrupt, then their constituents would solve the problem themselves. If they were unhappy with the official's performance, then they wouldn't re-elect the official. Constituents should always have the right to elect whomever they choose. This is a fundamental principle of democracy, that we all have the right to elect our leaders. If our leader has ran for two consecutive terms, and is still enormously popular, then there absolutely shouldn't be a term limit in place. Term limits only hinder our ability to vote for who we believe is best suited for the office. Corrupted officials will see themselves out of office just by the election process. If they are corrupt, and in office for a long time, this doesn't mean they will always be in office. If they are genuinely corrupt, and not suited for the office, then the people will reflect that by not voting them into office. Bringing in new people by having term limits is not necessarily a good thing either. What if the official currently in place is making the right decisions for the majority of their constituents? I'm aware it is impossible to please an entire state; but what if they were at least close to being in the favor of all of their constituents? They shouldn't be limited in their ability to re-run so long as they are having success. "If it isn't broken, then don't fix it" is an applicable phrase here: if the official in place is good and successful, then don't remove them via term limits. I don't see a way in which term limits can ever truly benefit a state because it limits our democratic principles as citizens to vote whomever we see fit into office.
DeleteI agree that 8 years is the perfect amount of time to have the same person in office. After 8 years, the economy has most likely changed. New political views have been established by new voters, opening up discussion for new ideas. Allowing someone to stay in office longer, only limits new idea's from arising and that politician's bias to negatively influence other incumbents.
DeleteDear Stella,
DeleteI understand how you believe that corruption comes from years of service but I disagree with you. I believe that years of service allows politicians to gain power and it is the power that actually corrupts them.
I somewhat agree with what you are saying, in a perfect world, there would be no corruption, but I believe that "elections" are just as good as term limits, and reducing expertise can cause problems. With no corruption and expertise in legislation, and doing good for the state, one will be re-elected, but if there becomes corruption, one can not be re-elected by the people. I believe in the saying "If it's not broke, don't fix it." In the case of West Virginia, Paige Madden and Ryan Petrovich brings up a good argument of Robert C. Byrd that also goes along good with the saying mentioned above.
DeleteWhen reading about term limits from the source :http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/why-term-limits#axzz2gc7z2KOE, I have to agree with the side that term limits are a good thing. Obviously there is good and bad in everything, but I believe they do more good than harm. I agree with the article in saying that if there were no term limits, legislators would not think as in depth about the laws they impose because they may not have to live under these regulations for quite some length of time. I believe it is important for legislator's to look at their political decisions from both the governmental and citizen point of view. Obviously everyone wants what is best for the economy, but also what is best for the people. Often times these two interests do not coincide, which means there needs to be an alternation of both interests to maintain balance. If a member of the legislator is always thinking about the economic or governmental benefit, the needs of the citizens could go unsatisfied for several years in a row. I don't think that term limits interfere with the american right to choice, because society still gets the opportunity to vote for the candidate they prefer, even if their first choice is no longer permitted to run.
ReplyDeleteI am not a resident of West Virginia so I personally do not have a strong preference about term limits for the state, but I do however think that they have the opportunity to be more beneficial than harmful. I think that without term limits, it is possible for a senior legislator to continuously serve in office simply because he or she is a "seasoned veteran". Just because someone has been in the business for several years, does not mean they continually hold the best interests or will lead most efficiently.
I believe that term limits should not exist. I feel as if they do just as they say, they limit and that can be a bad thing. I definitely agree with what Steve Accardi said in his blog post. There's always going to be two sides of the argument. I'll use Robert C. Byrd since he is the most familiar name to me. Byrd was re-elected on several occasion because he was really over with the WV people. I believe that if he was doing a good job why limit his terms? That was evidently the case, he was doing good work and the people kept bringing him back. It wouldn't make sense to limit him to 4-years or whatever the limit may be if he can continue to produce. I'll use Mirano Rivera, the great Yankees closing pitcher as an example too. If Rivera season after season continues to give you the best chance of closing out wins, why limit him or change it up? Then if his contracts up but he's still doing a great job, you should sign him to a longer deal. It's the same as if the person who is in office is doing a fine job, you should re-elect him or her.
ReplyDeleteI can also see where the point is made to limit terms because what if the person in the seat isn't producing and is lousy at his or her job. However, if that person is truly terrible at his job it would be in the hands of the people to recognize this and not re-elect the person. Makes sense, right?
I really like the quote that Paige Madden put in her blog post on here from James Madison. It really summarizes the point of having a great person in office and how they can continue to excel. I think that with Madison's quote you could connect it well with the phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." For me, if the person in office is doing a good job then why limit them or bring in someone new after said number of years (fix it) if he's doing everything right (it ain't broke).
I also noticed in through the discussion on here the mention of political corruption if they're in office long term. I think that political corruption could be present if they're in office for a long period of time but I don't believe that is that very common. I think it goes back to putting it in the hands of the people, if they can recognize the corruption then he or she wouldn't get re-elected the next time around.
I don't think limiting terms is a good idea. I really want to drive the point home that if the person is doing a great job year after year then why limit them if they're doing so well. I completely agree with not having someone in office if they aren't doing a good job but it needs to be the people's job to oust that person when he or she is up for re-election. I completely agree with WV not enforcing term limits.
I completely agree with every point you made. I also love that you used the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" phrase too. This really summarizes our overall argument. If the person in office is doing a good job, why remove them from office due to having a term limit? It really doesn't make sense to me how term limits could benefit a state in any way. You're right, if the person is office has poor performance, then it is the duty of the people to not re-elect them. It is not the duty of the state legislature to set term limits. This takes away power from the people, which is certainly not what the founding fathers intended for our nation.
DeleteI agree one hundred percent with everything you just stated. Its so true how its in the hands of the people to boot their state legislature out if the majority of citizens isn't happy with them. After all that is what voting was designed for isn't it?
DeleteTerm limits exist regardless of laws putting limits on officials who are in office. In the article by Thomas Suddes, he states that "elections" are basically term limits by themselves. If a person in office does a good job, they get reelected. If not, they get sent home. I find this point interesting because in a way it's true. However, popularity is a big factor in candidates running for reelection. Take for example Robert C. Byrd. He was reelected time and time again because of his popularity. Just because someone does a good or bad job does not mean that they won't get reelected.
ReplyDeleteSome argue that having term limits creates loss in the areas of experience and knowledge. However, according to Citizens for Term Limits this could create an urgency to complete task in half the time it takes now. Politicians have multiple years in office so they do not feel a sense of urgency to accomplish tasks. A disadvantage though would be government officials would feel pressured, and could make mistakes that are costly.
I think West Virginia should have term limits because politicians will be held accountable. The term limits should be consecutive years, allowing successful politicians to have another chance at office later on. An ideal term would be four consecutive two year terms. After the eight years, the candidate will either be eligible to run for another office that is higher than their current position or step down.
As Steve Accardi said in his post, there needs to be a ceiling. Politicians have to be accountable, and furthermore challenged.
I like your opening statement. Thomas Suddes example is spot on. The re-election is like a term limit so why have an actual term limit. If he or she is doing a fine job they stay, if not, they're out. I believe that's a good way to handle it, people need to recognize when someone's doing their job right and when they aren't.
DeleteI agree with you that politicians should have another chance at running, even if it was years after he/she held office. However, I think this is a great idea that would never really work. If constituents do not re-elect that person the first time, why would they be more likely to re-elect them later on? Also, if you would have to run every 2 years, for 8 years straight, you are spending half of those years positioning your re-election campaign then the other half you are looking for a better approval rating. This screams corruption.
DeleteThough I am not a citizen of West Virginia, I argue that legislative term limits would be a bad thing for the state. I believe that term limits are a bad thing anywhere, at any position. As long as there are regular elections, every two or four years, then I do not think that it should matter how many terms an official is allowed to serve. If the person is that popular that they are elected for five straight, or even more, terms, then why not let them continue to get re-elected? If the official's constituents are happy enough with that individual's performance, then I believe they should be permitted to be re-elected as long as they can sustain re-election.
ReplyDeleteI am aware that there are cases when even criminals get re-elected solely because of the money they bring to their constituents which is clearly unethical, but it still should be the peoples' decision to elect whomever they choose. For example, on a national level, George Washington was elected to consecutive terms as our first president, and the people wanted to elect him once more. He set a precedent for the presidency that two-terms became the norm. He argued that he did not want to become a king like that of England because its what they fought to avoid. I still believe that at whatever level, president or state official, he/she should have no limit on the number of terms he/she can run for office. So long as their popularity and performance are consistently good, then why should the representative not be allowed to continue to be re-elected? If West Virginia had a governor that became the most popular in its history, and was limited by the number of terms he/she could run for, then I would argue that that is an injustice to the citizens of West Virginia. The same applies to any state. A fundamental aspect of democracy in the United States is that its citizens have the right to vote for their leaders/representatives in government. If the people running for those offices are limited in their ability to run, then I argue that limiting terms hinders fundamental principles of democracy. Again, this is clearly dependent on the competence of the official and the quality of their service, but if the people are happy enough with them to re-elect them, then there should absolutely never be a limit on their ability to run for office. So, naturally, I am against legislative term limits for the state of West Virginia.
As a citizen of West Virginia I believe that we should not have term limits. I believe that if someone is popular enough to get reelected time after time then they must be doing something right. If the citizens in our state keep electing a person over and over then they should be allowed to run as many times as they want to until they no longer reelected. Also as a citizen we have the choice to elect the official we believe deserves the right to be elected into office. If there popularity and performance is good then why should we stop them from continuing their service to our state. I understand why some people want term limits to eliminate the bad use of power over a long period of time but this has not been the case in West Virginia. The citizens have to keep in mind when they vote if the official that has been in office is right for the state especially because we have so much diversity.
ReplyDeleteHow term limits impact women candidates:
http://www.capwip.org/readingroom/termlimits_impact.pdf
As for women in the legislature I believe this does not have much effect. The number of women in legislature with term limits has decreased since these limits have been set but it is not because of the set limit per say. In the article I have provided it states that term limits are not good nor bad when it comes to increasing women in legislature. Many things can be done to get more women in legislature but I don’t believe that blaming term limits is the way to solve this. All in all I don’t think that term limits are a good thing for West Virginia.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI understand your point that voters have the right to re-elect people in office and some legislatures like Senator Byrd do continue to bring a lot of good by staying in office but I disagree with you that this is overall a good policy because people could become corrupt, they wouldn't have the view point of voters and they wouldn't be as young and motivated to get things done.
DeleteI believe that our founding fathers would not agree with no term limits because if they can stay in office for the rest of their lives they will gain too much power and too much power corrupts. Even though when the are young they may swear that they will stay virtuous but just like minor King's it is easy to get off course.
Also we had career legislatures they would lose touch with the voters most likely not by meaning to but they would just no longer have the same experiences and spend time in the same places. For example if a new road needed paved and they stopped driving on that road because they are now in the Legislature then how would they know how bad it actually needed paved. I highly doubt that they themselves will actually drive down every road that voters wright to them asking to be paved. I believe it is better to have regular citizens in the Legislature because they represent the majority and they are the ones who really know what their area needs.
I also believe that we should not have career Legislatures because they will keep getting re-elected because of name recognition whether they are whats best for their area or not and once they feel secure in their job they will most likely not try as hard to get what their state "deserves" which in turn hurt their state. Older Legislatures may also not be as up to date on new technology issues such as whether talking on car Bluetooth's should be legal or not. I believe young and exited candidates are a good addition to the Legislature. I also believe that term limits are a good thing.
Here are some articles to back up my claim.
http://restartcongress.org/revolution/arguments-for-term-limits/
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/term_limits.htm
I do not have a certain answer weather West Virginia should or should not have limits for terms served. My overall thoughts are that as a state we should not have term limits. If elected 2 times or 20 times the candidate must be doing something right to keep having the majority or people to vote for him. I do not understand why we would need to limit someone's terms, if they are not doing more good then bad why would people keep voting for them? For example Joe Manchin severed from 2005 to 2010 for West Virginia, i believe he was there that long, because he did good for the state.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who lives in the state of West Virginia I think that WV should have term limits. Some people would argue that we need the most qualified, or most experienced person in office because they know what they are doing. But i look at differently, Like what is the state of WV missing out on by having the same person in office every year, when we could have someone new come in and maybe change things and make them better. This person may not have the experience but they will usually have different ideas of how things should be run. Who knows this new person may be the best thing ever for the state of WV. Another reason why term limits would be a good thing is because it would increase voter turnout, due to more competitive elections.
ReplyDeleteI've lived in West Virginia my whole life. (Yes, poor me.) I grew up right outside of Charleston, so politics are always "big" there. I truly believe that setting at least some sort of term limit would be a good thing for this state. We have the same old geezers getting reelected every time because a lot of the people of West Virginia feel that there's no chance in running against someone who has so much seniority and popularity. Popularity doesn't even mean that they're doing a good job, especially here. We have the same old geezers running the state, and we get the same old arguments in our legislature, and the same old results. This is the south; just your family name can mean that you're going to win it every time. I think that having some fresh faces and ideas would not be a bad thing at all for this state. In Thomas Suddes' article, he lists the sixth reason as, "Term limits are elitist. They imply voters are too stupid or lazy to actually judge candidates." And honestly, I think this is true for West Virginia. We're like to pick the easy way, the names we know, the families we recognize, and shit hardly ever gets done here.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with what Devin Jones said above, "Some argue that having term limits creates loss in the areas of experience and knowledge." This is true. But alternatively, not having term limits undermines the possibilities for new ways of thinking and new ideas.
I completely agree with you. Have the same old geezers elected just turns into having the same old arguments. Fresh and new thoughts, beliefs, and drive are the way to constant positive impacts.
DeleteI believe setting term limits is a good idea for this state especially in West Virginia. If term limits are not set, it is easy for political officials, I believe, to get into a certain state of mind where they are only working for politics and not for the constituents. After being in office for so long, it is difficult for politicians to remember what it is like to be an ordinary citizen in their district, and it is likely difficult to keep up with the evolving culture in everyday West Virginian's lives. With term limits in place, that effect will not have enough time to set it. They will listen more carefully to the constituents because they understand the daily trials of being an ordinary constituent. This brings up the question, as Zach Veltri said above, why set term limits if the candidate is continuing to do a good job?
ReplyDeleteI believe that for West Virginia, although this is not the case for all states, many people here share a similar point of view when it comes to politics. In other words, there is not much political diversity. It is beneficial for West Virginia to set term limits so that one person who upholds the views of the majority of the state does not become too powerful and the state does not fall behind as ideas and aspects of society change. Change in terms of political officials is good for keeping things diverse, and modern for West Virginia.
-Caitlyn Lewis
I think term limits would do good for West Virginia. Even though I am not from the state, I can tell people have deep beliefs in politics. Some might even say West Virginia is old fashion or stuck in their ways when it comes to who they vote for, how they feel the state should be ran, etc. A reason I think term limits could be a good thing in WV is that if a person keeps getting reelected then there will be no change in the state. Things will remain rough, the minimum wage here is really low, so maybe if a new person comes in with new ideas then maybe some change can be brought here to WV. It is easy for politicans to forget that they were once normal citizens like us so they fall into a trance that they lose track of what we go through day to day. The more fresh blood that is brought in the fresher WV will become. The state is rich in resources, low cost of living and beautiful surroundings, an ideal place for many people in America. Once change is done to the political scene here then I can see WV becoming a hotspot for people looking to retire which will lead to more revenue which will help the state as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I believe that if we had new people in office Wv might have a better reputation and we might get more tourists, visitors and new residents.
DeleteI believe that term limits in West Virginia are unneeded for a few reasons. If there is a political figure that is not doing their job and leaving the people of West Virginia unsatisfied, it would be simple enough to not reelect that political figure. The people of West Virginia really do have control of the situation; if a candidate seems corrupt or unfit for the position, then they wont be reelected. A state not having term limits just gives the people of that state some responsibility when it comes to keeping track of the running candidates. A important example as to why West Virginia should not have term limits is Robert Byrd, Byrd has done a great job in satisfying the needs and wants of West Virginians and also working for the greater good of West Virginia. If there was ever a candidate that was clearly more qualified that Byrd, the people of West Virginia would recognize this and at upon it. Another reason why term limits wouldn't be good for West Virginia is because as a political figure gains experience, they also gain recognition, popularity, and power, not only in West Virginia but around the country. If Robert Byrd didnt have the experience he has he wouldnt be able to get nearly as much done as he has for West Virginia. If you have something good going for your state then why change it, by creating term limits. It simply wouldnt be beneficial enough for West Virginia to create term limits in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your argument on "the people of West Virginia really do have control of the situation" because as we are the ones who vote, we may keep re-electing someone due to name recognition. Many people who vote are not educated on the in-depth state issues and just consider that legislator a big part of the state because they have been in office for so long and don't know anything different. If a voter thinks things are going "alright" then they are likely to keep the same legislator in office. A new politician is needed to prevent someone in office having too much power over too long a time span. I agree with Arman Aminian who talked about needing term limits because more work would be done if there was less campaigning and also because over a decade many issues and the person once elected themselves can change.
DeleteAlli
Ashley Wallace's point on the "same old geezers getting reelected every time because a lot of the people of West Virginia feel that there's no chance in running against someone who has so much seniority and popularity" really struck a cord with me. After reading the Cleveland article against term limits, I could see that the writer made a lot of very good points, and that only my gut feeling still nagged at me to support term limits.
ReplyDeleteAshley's comment really put my feelings into words. When states like West Virginia have a vote based so much on popularity and, basically, hereditary, it's impossible for newcomers to come in, just because the populace wishes to maintain the status quo.
Having term limits forces people to actually think about who they're voting for instead of just going down party lines and picking the choice that has made things just comfortable while the world changes around them.
I don't think term limits stifle democracy at all; in fact, I think they encourage it. If there is no easy choice, then people must become more engaged in who they're voting for. The Cleveland article also made mention of "experience," and how career politicians can run things better.
Career politicians have little to no experience with their constituents. More like a king than an elected official. The point of term limits is to let anyone have a chance to make things better, anyone to change the status quo, and not be blocked out by popularity and tradition. West Virginia especially desperately needs term limits, and better sooner than later.
I agree with you that the term limits could be increased, good point. Being from WV I believe that doing so could help our state. Also, the founding fathers was a good point.
DeleteI believe that setting term limits in West Virginia is beneficial. I think that term limits are good because they give other politicians a chance to be elected, it just seems fair. I also believe that if a politician is in office for too long they become too wrapped up and consumed in politics and might start to lose a sense of citizenship. If a politician is repeatedly re-elected, I think that it abuses power, and can be hurtful for those with opposing political views of the elected official. I think that the concept of term limits helps create a fair and just community. With that said, I do see the opposing argument, if a politician is doing a great job and benefiting a lot of people, I see why it could be frustrating to push him out of office. I see both sides, but all and all I do believe that term limits are generally beneficial.
ReplyDeleteAs a state, West Virginia has faced many large troubles within it's districts. Although I am not native to this wonderful state, I am fully aware of the negative connotations that have harmed the state's national image. For example, West Virginia ranks behind South Dakota as having the smallest population growth. For decades, West Virginia has faced problems with a declining economy, partly due to coal mines shutting down; forcing people to look elsewhere for work (www.nytimes.com). How do term limits effect the problems the state faces? Well, it is simple. The benefits of having a governor who has served in Congress before provides similar benefits as having no term limits for legislators. Politicians who have been able to serve an endless amount of years as legislators are more likely to know: where hidden spending money could be found, which problems are easily solvable verses one's that will take more time and effort, what their constituents need the most and how to make that happen through their strong political connections, etc.
ReplyDeleteI personally feel that most governmental positions should not just be part time jobs. If politicians were able to spend their undivided attention on key issues their districts are facing, they would most likely be able to get more done within their term. However, having "career politicians" has it's draw backs. Incumbents who have no other career outside of their political reign will do anything possible to keep their job in office. Thus, in some cases, becoming extremely harmful to their district/state.
I have noticed throughout the discussion that some people believe there is a reasonable conclusion to this predicament. I agree. I believe we are able to have the best of both worlds in this case. If we allow for longer term limits we can avoid career politicians while providing the availability for these legislators to become skilled at their job. By providing an 8 year cut off, with 4 year terms where every 2 years districts can evaluate the legislator's performance, legislators can focus their attention on their constituents and spend less concentration on preparing to run for re-election.
If West Virginia used these long term limits, legislators would be able to study why problems are arising before trying to take action. This would eliminate error and might even increase their political approval rating all at the same time.
I completely agree that there should be an 8 year cut off. That gives time for the person in power to learn, apply, and change the state. Also, it gives the rest of the government the ability to take what that person in power has done and learn how to make it better or avoid the issue completely.
DeleteAs a West Virginian born citizen I believe term limits would be a positive thing for our state. Term limits in my opinion are a necessary part of political elections because they keep certain legislators from being in power for too long. Often times when a politician has been in office for a long time they will become more corrupt as time goes on. Term limits keep elections fresh by introducing us to new candidates who could offer us new things.
ReplyDeleteSome of the comments above that are in support of removing term limits state that if a politician is doing well he or she will keep being re-elected and if they are doing poorly they will not be re-elected. I disagree with this because i believe once someone is in power they have many more connections and have better chance of staying in office than being defeated by another candidate. Already being in the office is an advantage during election times. Zac Gillispie left a comment above in which he talks about gerrymandering. This is a perfect example of how politicians already in power can continue to stay in power.
I also agree with what Jess Mazelon said about an 8 year cut off as a term limit and 4 year terms. I personally believe this is an appropiate amount of time a politician should be in office. I believe this would result in more actual work being done instead of politicians focusing on re-election. It also isn't too long for one person to be in power. Anything over a decade is too long for one person to have power in my opinion. Within a ten year span many things can change, as well as the person themselves.
I think that establishing term limits for West Virginia would benefit the state tremendously. I do agree with Paige Madden’s comment about Robert C. Byrd’s many reelections because of his popularity among his constituents, he outstanding and beneficial changes throughout the state of West Virginia, and also the amount of fundraising he was able to get for our state. I also believe that this kind of person does not come into the legislature very often. Robert C. Byrd did amazing things for our state but he was one of a kind.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I whole heartedly agree with Ashley Wallace’s comment “Popularity doesn't even mean that they're doing a good job, especially here. We have the same old geezers running the state, and we get the same old arguments in our legislature, and the same old results.” This rings so true to my ears. Your name can get you so far in this state. It can even get you continuously reelected when there is a better incumbent to choose from. Setting term limits would allow new faces into the legislature. Younger legislators are more likely to be open and willing to compromise than career legislatures who are likely to be more, in a sense, numb in the ways of the legislature. These career legislatures give no room to compromise between parties and do not allow themselves to open up to new ideas and this is the main reason nothing gets done in our state.
Also, these career legislatures have spent their time in office building relationships with people and making connections so that they can get reelected into office each election year. If we set term limits, the incumbents will not have to focus on the relationships to help get them reelected each upcoming election year, but focus on getting things accomplished for the state.
Although there are many interest debates and my classmates have taken many interesting sides on this blog assignment, i still maintain my belief that term limits are legitimate and should be present everywhere.
ReplyDeleteI understand the arguement that some people feel that term limits are "undemocratic" and that they imply that the voters are not educated enough and capable of making a good decision come election time as mentioned in the IDEA webpage. However, i think i can offer a new perspective as to why i feel term limits are appropriate.
I am from Clermont County, Ohio, just east of Cincinnati. I grew up and went to school in Batavia Local School Distrct, one of the fastest growing district in the Cincinnati tri-state area according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. When i was in the 5th grade, my father ran for the local school board and won the election by a landslide. Of course I love my Dad and will always "root" for him, i know the reason he won that election was because he was a genuinely respected community man and the school district needed someone like him to guide them. He was elected again from his 4 year term in 2008 and for a third time in 2012. I think that the reasoning is as simple as this: If the voters like the results from the incumbent, they will keep re electing them. This is why i disagree with the notion that term limits are undemocratic. Sometimes it is important to just take a step back and think about what the local government is doing and if you think electing or reelecting an official will improve or worsen something. My Dad brought good leadership and strength to the school district and people could see that.
Some people might see my position and expect me to argue against term limits since I am allegedly partial to my father. But I also saw his persepctive, which is one where i realized that he did NOT view his government position as a job. Sure there was a lot of outside hours from his corporate world job that went into the countless parent emails and teacher complaints, but his position was always something he wanted to do. He did not ever have any intentions of making a career out of his school board service or using it as a crutch to get somewhere else. He was not "holding on" to his office. I think many politicians and officials due this today.
I think many people have forgotten (and would probably disagree with this) that although there is indeed a government bureaucracy at work in our country, I think the real change and good from government in our country has come from those people who would still do it without getting paid.
I see similar instances to my Dad back home( like Ohio Senator Joe Uecker from the 14th district who has been in the scene since 2005,
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Uecker for further information)
but also on a larger scale. President John F. Kennedy is a good example of what I believe to be someone who had a good political head on his shoulders. He was involved and wanted to be involved for the right reasons. For the development of good will, for the strength of our country, and for a genuine love of his community.
So when my classmate Ryan Petrovich argued above that, in Robert C. Byrd's case "If hes doing a good job, why limit his term?", I would contend that it shouldn't really be a job at all.
Term limits are a necessary part of politics because it keeps legislators from gaining too much power over too long of a time span. Often corruption can come from representatives who hold office for long periods creating political instability. Term limits can lower the risk of state failures and increase state effectiveness. Term limits are also a good way to keep elections up to date, offering new politicians and views to be decided on.
ReplyDeleteSuccessful politicians should have the chance to work for their state, but term limits would emphasize the importance to get multiple projects accomplished while serving. Term limits do not take away citizens rights in my opinion, but only allow for new ideas to come about in office and help citizens to make better decisions on who is responsible for their state actions.
West Virginia legislators should soon consider imposing term limits. Providing term limits will allow for more work to be accomplished during a legislators' office time, cutting out the time that is spent towards campaigning for constant re-election. I also agree with Arman Aminian who made the point that over that long time span in office the person once elected themselves can change. Corruption always seems to sneak its way in, but a person could keep getting re-elected even if corruption is there. A situation like this was proven to us in class when we were lectured on these known troublemakers having no difficulty being kept in office. It was just how the citizens were used to going about the election process. That is not an ordeal I would want to deal with in West Virginia.
Term limits have good and bad points of view and is very debatable. I can see where term limits are a good thing, because older legislators are not allowed to run again and newer legislators are elected. It gives those newer legislators a chance to prove themselves. Also, it gives diversity to the state and it brings in newer faces, ideas, and overall can be a positive thing.
ReplyDeleteI honestly feel like the more experienced legislators are being punished for the experience that they are gaining by being in office. I believe the voters should be the ones who decides if that legislator should or should not be in office. If that legislator is doing a crappy job then they should vote that person out or if that person is doing a good job then the voters should keep him or her in office. I think by setting term limits, it hurts that persons ability to actually do something positive for the state because it limits the time that they have to be influential. So, for that reason, I am not a fan of term limits.
Term limits are an unnecessary entity for the state of West Virginia. As http://www.perkel.com/politics/issues/limits.htm writes, term limits bound the choices of the public. This particular website contains a voter’s guide on term limits and establishes that elections are the most necessary form of term limiting. “By having term limits, we are eliminating the people who have wisdom and experience from political life”. It is unnecessary for term limits to take power from the voters. If an elected official is poorly representing, he or she should be voted out of office. Conversely, if an elected official is still a good candidate, he or she should be reelected regardless of their length of service.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I am from District 7 where Lynwood “Woody” Ireland has been our representative since 2006. He continues to be reelected because the people of his district are pleased with his representation. It would be unnecessary for term limits to dictate his place in the House when he remains heavily favored by the people he represents. However, if something were to change the public perspective of Woody, the District would rightfully vote him out of the House for a more favorable Representative.
Thus, the most powerful argument against term limits is the attempt to squash the power voters utilize through elections. As many of my classmates have stated, citizens of West Virginia should have the power to choose their Representatives. Sadly, term limits would reduce that power which is unnecessary because voters have the means to replace unfavorable representatives during elections.
I do not think term limits are necessary, since elections are there to insure the purpose of such a thing. If an elected official does not do a sufficient job, they have a bigger chance of being thrown out of office come election time. I surely hope this ring true in the great state of West Virginia.
ReplyDeleteMr. Suddes makes some good points in this article about the Ohio state legislative body. Most important seems to be the points about the governor (the executive branch) gaining too much power if the members of the Senate and the House of Delegates cannot gain access or are simply run over by lobbyists. But even if members are term limited they would hopefully still have qualified staff that can help sort through the lobbyists, so they don’t become the ‘deciders’.
Side note: In Denmark, where I am from, is it up to each party to decide rather or not they want term limits for their elected officials. There are no mandatory term limits, at the national level. Only the party furthest to the left (the red-green alliance) have a form of term limits. They have a so called rotation principal. A member can serve a maximum of 7 years or what is generally two terms, after that they cannot be put on the party’s ballot for two years. This rule where created as a way to keep the members of parliament in contact with the outside world and to get fresh faces elected.
I think that West Virginia should have a term limit for legislatures. I don’t think one person should be in office for too long, but long enough where they can make some changes. I don’t think that it requires too many years to achieve that goal. A term limit is a good idea because other people might be able to do a better job. George Washington gave up his position, as president after two terms because he thought that one man shouldn’t have that much power. He wanted to leave an example for future generations, and now the president can only serve up to two terms. I’m not from West Virginia so I don’t know how well things are doing, but West Virginia does not have term limits and nothing extremely bad has happened. If they did have term limits, people are going to be shocked with the change, but over time I think it might even improve over time.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am not a citizen of West Virginia, I do not think the state should have term limits. It is hard to say what effects West Virginia's legislature would have because of term limits. Effects vary greatly from state to state. The major issue with term limits is an increase in turnovers. Legislatures generally have members who serve for many years. Their leadership and aptitude are a beneficial resource to the legislature. Term limits remove these members of seniority. If a legislator is efficiently performing their duties, then they should be reelected time and time again. The same goes for a legislator who does not perform his or her duties well, voters should be able to elect a different representative. Voters should have the power to choose a representative. With term limits, the power of voters is taken away and given to the legislature. In addition, term limits also do not bring diversity into the legislature as some may assume. Their has not been an increase in female or minority legislators. In any case, a state that has a more diverse legislature is a result of demographic change rather than term limits. Furthermore, legislatures that have term limits are more likely to have less leadership. Legislators who excel in leadership are never able to fully influence the legislature because of term limits. Legislators stay only for a brief period of time and aren't able to completely achieve their goals. Without term limits, legislators have more experience and expertise to successfully achieve what they set out to do. There is also the argument of the balance of power when analyzing term limits. A legislature with more experience, expertise, and seniority are more likely to challenge the governor on issues. While a legislature with term limits are less likely to because they are constantly consisting of new members that may be inexperienced and avoid conflict with the governor. In conclusion, a legislature with term limits is a legislature of inexperience, with conforming members and a lack of leadership. Why would a citizen want a legislature that does not represent them successfully? Thus, term limits should not exist in the state of West Virginia or anywhere else for that matter.
ReplyDelete-Taylor Shipley
http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/BOS2005-LegislativeTermLimits.pdf
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that legislative term limits would be a good idea for West Virginia. Once one gets into office they need time to adapt, learn what the people want, expand their knowledge, and then apply what they know to make positive change. But once you are in office for so long you may start to lose sight of what the people want. It may turn into a power kick and whomever is in power may focus more on what he or she believes not the people. I strongly agree with Steve Accardi that there eventually needs to be some type of change. No one person should be in office forever.
ReplyDeleteAs stated in the termlimits.com article, “long-time incumbents from other states whose very presence can be extremely harmful to the country and to our own individual states. Often they have, by virtue of seniority, acquired positions of great power in the Congress. We have no say in the election and reelection of these people, who can do so much damage.” Term limits is the answer to this problem. The term limits will attract candidates of higher caliber, once careerism is removed as a motive for candidacy.
I agree with Anthony Pecoraro that term limits bring about fresh and new ideas, leaders, and diversity. If you keep the same person in power forever eventually they will become burnt out. They will no longer have those brilliant ideas, no longer have the drive to succeed, and they will just become content with doing just enough to get by.
Without term limits arguments will get very repetitive. You will have the same people constantly arguing and not able to agree on a decision. Also, if there is negative power and no term limits the state is stuck. Term-Limits allow the people to have some say in the state decisions. Over the years people change and there is much diversity. Without term-limits the state could potentially lose a lot of money. People may move out of the state or avoid living or visiting it. I do feel that term limits will limit corruption and increase diversity. There will be less corruption because there is no fear of no change and the same person continue to have that power. Diversity will increase because every reelected person will bring a new view and new set of followers.
In all I do believe that West Virginia should have term-limits.
-Athena White
I agree with what Athena is saying. It is good to bring in change once the term limit has been served. Each elected official will be different from the last, but they will be able to present a new perspective on how to be productive while in office. The best point made is that "No one person should be in office forever." In saying that I think its fair to say that one person can only do so much as well.
DeleteI do not think that West Virginia needs to have term limits. If we didn't think that our legislatures were doing a good job we would not keep reelecting them. Byrd was in the legislature for a long time, but in that time he did many great things for West Virginia.
ReplyDeleteKelsey, I agree with your first sentence. West Virginia should have term limits. But not ALL of West Virginia should have term limits. In states like West Virginia with areas like district 7, term limits may be unnecessary. In other areas term limits may be necessary. I believe term limits should be designated to areas based on geography and population.
ReplyDeleteThis website http://www.balancedpolitics.org/term_limits.htm has a list of pros and cons related to term limits. It is in my favor because it displays more pros then cons. The cons should be applied to having term limits in rural less populated areas and the pros should be applied to having term limits in urban highly populated areas.
In a less populated rural area there aren't many new or very large issues at stake. These communities will be quiet, and live not in excess or need as much as an urban community. The office holders in these areas gain their credibility through the trust the community has in them. The people in these areas know exactly who is in office (they put him/her there), what kind of job he /she is doing, and whether they approve of it. If at any point or time the office holder does anything to upset its constituents, the constituents can simply vote someone more capable to do the job. So as Kelsey said, Woody has been doing a great job and representing the people well, so he should stay in office and not get kicked out by a term limit.
But these areas do not make up all of WV. There are other areas that are more urban and have a greater population. These areas will see new diverse issues on the regular, and the population will have a great stake in some issues. Business, the environment, and new laws/ regulations play a greater role in these areas. That is why their should be term limits in these areas. with issues like these and a diverse population there will always be differing opinions. Term limits will allow for policy debate through competitive elections. If there is competition the office holders will only work harder to benefit the constituents and gain votes. Another pro I want to reiterate from the list is that term limits create opportunities for NEW political participation. Our generation has a better chance at participation with term limits. Our founding fathers believed a new fresh voice was essential to a democratic government. New ideas and perspectives are what make a democracy. George Washington was a great president and probably could have stayed in office til death. America might have been a different story had he not passed on the throne and set the standard. The same goes with term limits. It is necessary to step down every once in a while and let the office evolve in its own way.
So, in urban areas with a high population and diverse opinions it is especially important to have term limits. But in low population rural areas with less diverse issues one person for the job (until he loses it at the hands of the democratic) may be better than having a term limit.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that West Virginia legislators should have term limits. If a legislator is in office with no term limit then that individual can end up becoming more focused on his or her own wants and needs rather than addressing the peoples needs. Although I agree with Athena White when she said that legislators need time to adapt, learn about the wants and needs of the people, and expand their knowledge in order to make positive changes, I also believe that too much time can leave a negative impact on the achievements set to meet the peoples needs. If a legislator is in office for too long they will begin to not only lose sight of the priorities of the people but they may also fall into the trap of having too much power. As already stated arguments for term limits include corruption, increase diversity, and create more competitive elections. Having term limits greatly increases diversity in the legislature, which I believe is important because you need to have fresh ideas and something new to bring to the table. If the same people are in office for years then ideas will become repetitive and they may even form a bias against certain wants and needs of the people. Also having diversity and the ability to reelect a legislature allows for competitive elections, which allows citizens as voters to compare and intellectually decide as a state who the best candidate will be.
ReplyDelete“Support for term limits extends to significant majorities of diverse demographic groups: polls show that majorities of men, women, blacks, whites, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all favor term limits, typically by 60 percent or better” This statement came from the article Term limits: The only way to clean up congress by Dan Greenberg.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1994/08/bg994nbsp-term-limitsnbsp-the-only-way. Not only does Dan Greenberg’s statistical comment prove how important the diversity of people favor term limits but also his title alone goes to show the positive impact term limits provide.
Robert C. Byrd would be an example of someone who successfully met the wants and needs of the people. Although Robert C. Byrd has had many reelections due to his popularity for the many valuable changes and prosperous fundraising he has created for the state of West Virginia, incumbents are not chosen based off of popularity and name. I agree with Hannah West when she says that Byrd was one of kind but just because he has made some effective contributions to the state does not make him the best candidate in a long-term setting. Popularity is what voters want to steer away from when electing a legislature because it has to be about their perseverance to accomplish the wants of the people. A term limit helps limit reelections based solely on popularity and enhances the opportunity for new minds to enrich the state and the congress with their ideas while they strive to be better than the last and better than the next.
Term limits have an assuring future on numerous political aspects. Some of these facades include state votes, candidate elections, dictating everyday legislative turnover, reducing corruption, aiding state and federal legislative action, bringing about a brand new prospective, and helping to assist in congressional and presidential politics. In my opinion due to previous comments from fellow classmates and after researching numerous articles many will agree that having term limits is the way to go!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn theory, term limits seem like they would be something beneficial to the state government. It could mean someone who might not get elected under normal circumstances would have a better chance. Yet, that is not necessarily a good thing. If West Virginia comes across a state legislature that is of outstanding quality, it would seem a bit absurd to give them a term limit. It genuinely could reduce the quality of the state legislature to simply pick a different state legislature only because the current one had exceeded their term limit. If the outcome would result in our state suffering in some way, it would appear especially ridiculous--especially if the problem could have been easily avoided by demolishing term limits.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I am extremely against the government having too much power. I find it foul when people are not capable of making their own decisions based on a, in my opinion, terrible rule. It is exceedingly undemocratic to disallow citizens to elect whomever they want.
Now I do appreciate that having term limits opens opportunities to other citizens to be elected. That is a wonderful benefit to allow others to receive this opportunity. Yet, in the end, quality is the most significant factor and term limits has the possibility to really reduce that.
This is how I see term limits: Let's say a talented painter has finally been given the opportunity of his life, to create his master piece. Let's also say that he takes this opportunity and in ten years he is told he can no longer work on it anymore and that someone else would take over and finish the job. Or would they? Maybe all that work was for nothing.
ReplyDeleteThe point I am trying to make here is that the politicians who make it into office are there for a reason. The people have given them an opportunity to make change, a specific change that others wanted to see forth. Some things in government are never finished because the artist behind the masterpiece has to give up his/her spot.
I understand why people are in favor of term limits, it makes sense. But if we are putting someone in office it is because they promised something to the people. If they are diligently working to get it done and need more time to complete their plan I believe it is only fair to let them finish the job. On the other hand if they say they will accomplish something and are as productive as a paper weight then they wont get voted in if they run again. They will have ruined their own credibility and have put a cap on themselves. This will give more power to the voters, to give the people a voice
Going along with Thomas Suddes first reason against term limits I agree that elections are the public’s tool to take someone out of office that is not doing a good job and opposite reelecting a politician that is doing a good job. So why would the public need them if they already have who they want in office and have the power to take them out? From the Citizens for Term Limits they might say that the public can’t always vote out the a politician who is doing a bad job because they are the incumbent and they have resources such as money from PAC’s, name recognition, franking privilege, and media. Even with these statics on the incumbents side the public still has the choice.
ReplyDeleteI really like how Roy Labaton it as talented painter who has only ten years to accomplish something great. Like the painter politicians are there for a reason to make a change. With how slow our government works and how restrictive these term limits are nothing monumental can get accomplished and at this point in time we need some monumental change in our government.
In terms of West Virginia’s legislature I think we shouldn’t have term limits. I feel that the citizens are capable of electing/reelecting without the restrictions of two term limits with eligibility after four years. I don’t agree with what Marissa Conrad said about the politicians “end up more focused on their own wants and needs.” Robert C Byrd was great example of how being in office in for fifty-seven years didn’t cause him to become more focused on his needs. He was constantly doing and getting things for West Virginia. Overall I believe that term limits are useless since we have elections and they are only limiting the progress that politicians can achieve.
I am in favor of term limits for legislators, the President has a term limit and I do not see why state legislators shouldn't have one either it goes to support the same purpose to prevent a tyrannical form of government from occurring which is what our fore fathers fought against during the revolutionary war.
ReplyDeleteTerm limits help to bring about change in government by preventing corrupt outdated politicians from keeping a chair in office. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzFK3_dXe0Q brings up the point that without term limits, times will evolve the views of the constituents will change, however the person holding an office or a chair will not change. This generation is more open minded to things that were once seen as an abnormality such as gay marriage, and if there is not some way to prevent the same elderly legislators from being reelected time and time again, the policies are not going to mirror the desires and feelings of the constituents. Term limits help to reduce the amount of corruption in government, which is what www.termilimits.com touches upon. The corruption stems from their seniority. These legislators are regarded with more respect and have the opportunity to have more pork going to their districts, because they were there longer then the rest and have more of the connections. Term limits can limit this by leveling the playing field if they are only allowed 2 two year terms there's not enough time to manipulate rather they'll have to work quickly to get things done. Back to the previous statement in regards to reelection. Term limits give other candidates a chance to be elected into government because there is evidence to suggest that incumbents are more likely to be reelected over a new candidate. The incumbent already has name recognition and generally speaking people will vote for the person already in office rather than vote for someone new because of the familiarity also if someone is ill informed, they will generally vote for the incumbent having little doubts that they are doing a good job. Term limits will aid new candidates to get elected and help to benefit society by producing more modern policies www.idebate.org.
As a born-and-raised resident of Morgantown, I can see both sides to this story. Term limits are good for the state because they create more competition for seats (because incumbents can't keep running for reelection) and they decrease corruption. Another reason why term limits are good is that politicians will concentrate on their job in office rather than getting reelected. A politician running a reelection campaign every other year is a waste of money, time and resources.
ReplyDeleteHowever, term limits are bad because they do not allow good politicians to keep their spots. As a fairly poor state, many of our best leaders and politicians could easily cross the border over to Maryland, Pennsylvania and other non-term limit states. Not only could they be a career politician there, they would probably make more money. Since we are one of the more poor states, we should keep hold of the good politicians we have. A great example that many other students commented is Robert C. Byrd. His connections and power gave so much money to West Virginia. Perhaps he is the anomaly, but term limits seem detrimental to a state that doesn't have a lot of money, power or connections.
I think a compromise between the two is the best bet. I like Zac Gillispie's idea of lengthening the term, but adding term limits. That way politicians who are elected will only concentrate on getting reelected every four years or so (however long the term is extended) but the limits will increase diversity within the legislature.
I believe we should have terms in WV and across the nation. As Steve Accardi stated, "the founding father's never envisioned our government to be having career politicians like we have today". In my opinion, the founding fathers wanted politicians to come from the people, for the people. They wanted legislators to come from the private sector with fresh ideas, and after achieving their desired goals, returning to their primary jobs.
ReplyDeleteLegislators who have been sitting in a capitol building for years and enjoying the perks of office, with no real threat of losing their jobs cannot honestly believe they are still in touch with the people they are elected to represent.
Though I believe in term limits, I still think we need some career politicians. I think it should be a progression (eg "job advancement"). I don't want someone with legislative power to have no experience or idea of how things work. The problems come when politicians take an elected office and make it their career. They get comfortable where they are, and lose ambition and drive. They become more concerned about protecting their jobs than representing the people.
I understand the argument against term limits restricting the time legislators have to accomplish their goals. It would be interesting to know how states with term limits compare with states without in regards to the legislative process. Are states with term limits as stagnant in their process as states with long standing representation?
This is just my opinion of what the founding fathers intended. According to others, it is the exact opposite, so their intent is open to interpretation. I believe their needs to be a change somewhere to avoid slow moving government process, such as the current "government shut down". The Constitution of our country is unique as it is fluid and open to interpretation and amendment. This is why we have the opportunity to be free to debate and discuss our governmental process.
Joey England
"But term limits retire House members and senators after eight years -- saints and scoundrels alike. If that doesn't limit an Ohioan's right to vote, then North Korea is a democracy."
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with this statement, as well as most all points made by Thomas Suddes in his case against legislative term limits. The more you limit the democratic process practiced in America, the less democratic it becomes. A government of the people is regulated by the people. Thus, term limits simply limit the people's ability to choose who is a good fit for their district and who isn't. I've lived in West Virginia my whole life and my district has kept some of the same legislators in power since I was six years old. Why? Because these people were from our area with our area's best interests in mind. Since our district has been divided into three single member districts, our delegates are our neighbors. They know what we need and where we as a community struggle. They have gained seniority and leadership throughout the years and have been able to better serve our district through their time and experience in the political process. Without an experienced legislator from our area, our small town would never receive the funding and resources we need to thrive as a community.
That being said, I think the argument of strongly Democrat or Republican districts could bear some weight. However, my district seems to strongly combat this argument. In number, our district is without a doubt Democrat, yet we have consistently elected a Republican delegate, recognizing that he better personifies the values represented across our district. I think this proves that the voting electorate is not nearly as moronically partisan as term-limit supporters would suggest. I can’t say I’m against the idea subtly proposed at the end of Suddes’ article. Why do candidates require party identification to be specifically listed on the ballot? If nothing else, at least voters would have to do enough research to discover which candidates belong to their party. Should party really be the only qualification by which we are voting? The sad fact is, as proved in a study at Yale University, most people are willing to entirely disregard facts and personal beliefs when they become aware of their party’s position (Cohen, 2003). The idea of a non-partisan ballot seems to better combat partisan voting in these strongly Democrat or Republican districts.
Overall, I think the idea of legislative term limits is demeaning to voters. The idea that we are so very ill-equipped to decide when legislators have our best interests in mind and when they don’t completely undermines the idea of the democratic process. While we as voters may not always make the right choices, that does not make these choices any less ours to make.
Cohen, Geoffrey. "People Vote their Party, not their Personal Beliefs." Yale News , November 18, 2003. http://news.yale.edu/2003/11/18/people-vote-their-party-not-their-personal-beliefs.
Suddes, Thomas . “The case against legislative term limits: Thomas Suddes.” Cleveland.com, July 28, 2012. http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/07/the_case_against_legislative_t.html.
I do not think that term limits would be a good idea for West Virginia. The argument that I feel strongly about that goes against term limits is that it indeed does take away from the citizens. I feel like it is extremely important that we the people have a say who runs our government, and if we feel that the current legislature is doing a good job, than we should be able to vote him/her back in or vise versa, if we don’t like the way he/she is doing their job, we can simply vote them out. For example, I agree with Paige Madden when she referred to Robert C. Byrd. Byrd was reelected several times because the citizens of WV loved what he had done for the state. Another belief I agree with is that on restartcongress.org it mentions that politicians should be valued for their experience, and if you limit that, we will lose this valuable experience that a person can offer in the government. When experience leaders are reduced, this makes interest groups and bureaucracies more powerful. A third argument that I saw a few other classmates mentioned was that term limits restrict legislators from accomplishing any kind of long term goals. We see this very often nationally in the federal government, so if term limits were put into place for states, we’d see the same problem.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading some of the articles posted I agreed with term limits. I thought they provided another way for the government to “check” itself. After reading the articles I have however switched sides for many reasons.
ReplyDelete1. Term limits not only limit the candidate’s years in office, they limit the voter’s power. In my opinion this limit’s the voters say in things. Not only does it not allow us to pick who we may believe is best suited, it also can eliminate the true “best person for the job”. If my legislative senator or representative is doing what I believe to be the best thing for the state then obviously I’m going to want that person in there from now until the end of time. With the limits, I have someone telling me that I can’t vote for them because they’ve “outstayed their welcome” and it’s time to move onto the next person. If I want someone in office I’ll vote (or not vote) for them and limit their terms myself.
2. Incumbents usually come with perks. For example, maybe they’ve been in the senate for several years and are a part of a committee that functions very well in the eyes of the state’s citizens. If the senator can never run again this prevents that committee from being as effective as it once was. Also, that committee has to wait for the “freshman” senator to become accustom to the traditions. That wait time creates an ineffective body in the committee and therefore makes the committee less effective. As this article states for Maine term limits, “Like many lawmakers here, Cameron says term limits have created an ineffective state legislature with little historical institutional knowledge. Freshmen with little or no political experience are pouring in”. (http://www.csmonitor.com/1999/0412/p2s1.html/(page)/2) This statement is coming from a former Maine legislator that has watched his decision to vote for term limits effect the state in a negative way. Also, if a policymaker knows what he’s doing it’s normally, not always, but normally because with experience comes knowledge. I urge anyone to argue with that.
3. I also believe that these term limits weaken the legislative branch enough that the executive branch becomes more powerful. As partially stated above bringing in new people can weaken the effectiveness and therefore strengthen the other branches, namely the executive. The Governor can overpower an inexperienced legislator and their staff. As this article states, “Term limits demoralize staff, leading to more turnover and generally less influence. Lobbyists despise term limits and are not strengthened. Their job depends on developing trust with lawmakers and educating them on issues. With term limits, lobbyists must work ever harder at this, as members and leaders come and go. On the other hand, term limits strengthen the executive branch, particularly the governor. The legislature defers to the governor much more under term limits.” (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130918/OPINION/130919804/like-term-limits-be-careful-what-you-wish-for) I may like our current governor but what if the next one coming in is someone I don’t agree with. He would become more powerful than my representatives that may be new. I don’t like that idea at all. I don’t want my district to be punished because we chose to elect someone new.
I could literally go on and on about the negative aspect of term limits forever. I’ve only listed above some of the most influential reasons above. Although some may not agree I personally believe that they’re a bad idea for West Virginia. I don’t want any of the above things to happen to my home state. I want to be able to choose my legislators without restrictions, feel comfortable with the fact that my legislative branch is going to be effective while in office, and also that my incumbent (if he/she happens to be one) can retain the powers he/she has worked for all their years in the legislative branch and remain an effective/important person in the state.
After reading the prompt for this blog assignment, and viewing each source that was provided to us, I formed the opinion of, “why fix it, if it is not broken.” I believed that term limits would not be a good idea for West Virginia. If a member of the legislature serves consecutive years with no limit, and has the votes from the people, why cut their time in office? Voters vote for the “best” candidate and for whom they believe serves their state right. Their vote is the voice to how they believe in a political figure. However, after reading responses from my fellow peers, I changed my mind towards the term limits. Term limits would be a good idea for West Virginia. I think that a key way to evolve as a nation is having change. Change of position in office is beneficial to the people. If West Virginia continues to go without term limits, the State may miss out on an opportunity to have some much needed change. A student, “acolasan” brought up the occurrence of voters re-electing someone due to name recognition. As learned in Political Science 220, name recognition is one of the ways politicians are able to hold their spot in office. Voters with little to no true education in politics and their state’s legislature often vote with familiarity, and are unaware of the important political matters. However, when term limits come into play, voters who see a new name will vote, and West Virginia will see some difference.
ReplyDeleteI think that in West Virginia the legislature should have consecutive term limits. Many of my fellow classmates have made good arguments on both sides of the issue, and I believe that a bit of a compromise is the best solution, with legislators having to take a term off every two or three terms. Doing this ensures that new people get a fair shot at the legislature, which http://termlimits.com/answers.htm points out that they do not. The resources that already elected officials have at their disposal can very easily tip the election in their favor, giving them an unfair advantage over challengers. My reasoning for not having lifetime term limits is one that many people before me have argued: that if the people of a district really like their representative in the legislature they should be allowed to reelect him/her. With consecutive term limits, the citizens of a district can still decide to keep well-liked legislators, while also giving challengers a fair fight in the election.
ReplyDeleteShould West Virginia have or not have term limits? I think that there are positive and negative to each side of this argument of term limits in West Virginia. Positive toward this argument is that it would provide citizen legislators to the state. Citizen legislators have benefits like that they would not focus on the aspect of getting reelected as much, and worrying about doing what is right in terms of the state. Though some people would say that it would be a bad thing because they would be less experienced and cause more mistakes than what a pro legislators would cause. Also it is an argument whether or not term limits would provide more diverse and more competitive politics. If I had to choose one side to this it would be that I do not think that West Virginia should have term limits. I am a person of this state, and feel like I should get to choose if I want a legislator to stay in office or not. If I do not like what a legislator is doing for our state after a years I should be aloud to say hey I want someone new to take over and see what they can do. Although, if I really like who is in office I should be able to vote them to stay one year, ten years, or how ever long I would want them to stay in office. Say a politician has been doing a great job and people like where the state is going but then they cannot move forward because their term is over and cannot go up for reelection. I think that how ever long a politician stays in office should be based on how well they are doing the right things for the state, not a limit that restricts them.
ReplyDeleteCreating term limits in West Virginia would be positive for multiple reasons. Switching out legislators every few keeps would have benefits towards the people. First, it would bring in more citizens to be in legislation. This keeps the system more genuine and the people feel closer to the government. This would be true because it is not their determination to get a job being it legislation, it’s to get policies how they want them. It’d be more genuine because people feel they want to get involved to be able to be that citizen that can help change things and help out their community. http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/BOS2005-LegislativeTermLimits.pdf suggests that because legislative staff has a shorter term-period, they are needed to rise in their leadership and take fuller responsibility more quickly than one without a term limit because they have longer time to transition themselves to feel more influential. Term limits will also create security and confidence in citizens because they have the power to elect someone new into their legislation more quickly when they don’t particularly like what someone is doing. Yes, many people argue that people do not care as much in legislation because they do not get a long-term seat, or goals, but I think it gives more opportunity. People running will think there is less pressure towards them and can really fight for what they believe in because they do not have to stay in term for a long time. I think that term limits would be good in West Virginia because of the positive affects it would have on it’s people.
ReplyDeleteTerm limits are a very debatable issue within politics. There are very many issues for and against term limits, all which make practical sense. I believe that the state of West Virginia would benefit from term limits.
ReplyDeleteTerm limits help to prevent corruption, allow change within the branch, and provide greater competition. Power is a very big issue when dealing with term limits. When a person has held a position for too long they will start to let the power get to them. This will make the elected official focus more on being reelected and campaigning than focusing on the real problems they are supposed to be working with. When a person holds too much power for too long they will start to be bias and self-serving rather than working for and helping the people. As “Joey.E” stated, if a person has no threat of losing their job, they won’t focus on the people and therefore will lose touch with the voters. Eventually having the same person hold their position will get old and change will be necessary but that change can’t happen if the voters keep voting the same official. It also makes for little competition within in an election because the voters already know who will be likely to win so they themselves may vote for that person as well even if they don’t fully agree. The state of West Virginia has had a history of corruption and I believe that term limits will help to improve this corruption problem as well as prevent it from happening in the future.
I believe that there should be limits within the term limits so that it isn’t too much of a power. For example, I believe that a person should be able to be reelected because often one term isn’t enough time for them to solve issues, but I believe that multiple reelections should not be allowed because that’s when the power will increase and corruption will begin.
1 Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis.
2 Green, Eric. 2007. "Term Limits Help Prevent Dictatorships". America.gov.
I believe that term limits in West Virginia is necessary. If term limits are not in place, it is easy for political officials to create some form of corruption because it is too much power for too long. After being in office for a long term, politicians can let power get into their head and our state will never grow and change. With term limits in place, we get different people with different ideas and knowledge. Politicians will listen more carefully to the concerns of the people and we can put different policies in place in order to keep the state up and running. I believe that for West Virginia isn't really worried about corruption in state government and that we have elected leaders that we trust. Many people here share a similar point of view when it comes to politics and policies. In other words, there is not much of a political diversity. It is beneficial for West Virginia to set term limits so that one person who keeps the views of the majority of the state does not become over powerful and the state will be available and willing for change every few years. Change in terms of political officials is good for keeping things diverse and fresh. Time is fast and society changes so it's necessary for us to keep new, smart politicians in our legislature.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that i'm more against term limits than i would be for them. To me, i just don't understand how limiting the amount of terms ones allowed to run for, really helps anything. I get how sometimes an individual in legislation can be doing an awful job for their state, but that's when we as citizens are supposed to step in and vote to get them out whenever they're up for re election.
ReplyDeleteI definitely don't think its fair for the simple fact that there's states out there who have had very good legislatures that citizens really respect and like having in office. Like the simple fact that West Virginia citizens kept re electing Robert C Byrd because they felt he was doing what was best for the state. He had an immense acceptance and approval of the voters, so therefor he should be able to stay in office as long as he is elected to.
Another article that i found and agreed with was http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3105-term-limits-%E2%80%94-still-a-bad-idea written by Gregory A. Hession. This guy makes a lot of great points and helped me to realize why i think I'm more against term limits.
In my opinion I do believe there should be legislative term limits in West Virginia. By applying legislative term limits it makes it harder for prolonged corruption and abusive use of power from certain legislatures. The way I look at is that the longer you hold office the easier you are to be corrupted. The reason I say that is because by the time these officers have to be reelected after countless years they’ve end up owing so many favors to different people they aren’t working for the better of the state and citizens but to fulfill all the promises they make. It keeps people honest with less influence of long-term corruption.
ReplyDeleteBesides reducing long-term corruption by setting term limits it also gives the challenger running for office a better chance at winning elections. With incumbency advantages like large war chests, name recognition, franking, and constant campaigning over your term, it’s nearly impossible for the challenger to win with all these advantages of incumbents. By limiting the amount of terms you can have it reduces the incumbency advantages that can be very harmful to our states and country.
Also by placing term limits bring new ideas into office from different candidates. Bringing in constant new ideas to title their campaigns it gives for more competitive and interesting elections. It makes less chance for one-sided elections. It will also make the elected officials term more effective without the constant hassle of trying to be reelected for office. For example house members are limited to a 2-year term, which means they run for office in November win the election that year, and start their term in January. After their first year they have to start campaigning again for the next primary after 12 months so house members are basically only working for a year and campaigning the other year. Which makes their job less effective while they spend all that time campaigning.
With all this being said I do believe term limits should exist for West Virginia. Even though there are clear arguments for both sides I do believe the pros of term limits outweigh the cons.
I agree with term limits in West Virginia and think they are very necessary. This allows diversity in politicians and creates more of a competition for the candidates. The more competition the politician has the more work he will show to impress the citizens he represents. This creates citizen legislators which will have more of an insight on to what the people in the area want to see happen. Like Jarrett Walker stated there isn't much concern of corruption in West Virginia, but that doesn't mean it doesn't still happen from time to time. However, with term limits it would almost flush out corruption completely with the right candidates. This can lead to concerns that new candidates are more prone to corruption since they dont really know the ropes, but if Im sure West Virginia citizens will be able to select the right person. Overall I am all for term limits in West Virginia, i believe it is a great way to keep our politicians in check.
ReplyDeleteI believe that West Virginia legislators should have term limits. People need to have faith in the system of selecting the next candidate. Newly elected officials will not always carry on the agenda of the former politician, but that person may already have an idea of what’s good for the state. Some people are going to do more with there time in office than others. I do feel with West Virginia there is a difficult example to keep in mind. Someone such as Robert C. Byrd is a tough politician to match accomplishments with. I feel as if every politician afterwards is only going to be continually compared to Byrd. Although if someone did get elected and accomplished a lot within their time, then why should someone else have to come in and take that spot. Termlimits.com offers a unique perspective on this debate, “another factor that is often overlooked is that there are long-term incumbents from other states whose very presence can be extremely harmful to the country and to our own individual states.” Their solution is that term limits prevent situations like this from happening because with term limits you can attract high caliber candidates once careerism is removed from the picture. With term limits I believe that the politician will feel more of an urgency to accomplish as much as possible. It has to be kept in mind that whomever is elected wants to do what’s best for the state.
ReplyDeleteI guess honestly I’m on the fence on whether WV should have term limits for legislation. I agree with different point from different sides with the side that doesn’t want to limit terms and the side that wants to limit terms. I do agree that having a term limit does create more competitive elections and allow us to see what new leaders can do and the ideas that they have. Also, I think that if we have term limits then someone wouldn’t get too comfortable and use their position for personal gains; they won’t forget that they could be replaced in the next election. But when the side comes to not have term limits I can understand because what if you have someone in office that really understands the legislative system and has been making really good choices for the state, we wouldn’t want to have a fear of losing them. After reading different articles, I do believe that I am more for having term limits because we don’t take the choice away from the voters. Also, with that being said, It does also help create diversity and have people who have slightly different views instead of people with the exact same view that are trying to push their views off on everyone else. Having term limits also help with letting women and minorities enter the running and have a chance as well.
ReplyDeleteAnd having term limits set in place, we able to see people come forward who have new ideas and new ways of doing things that we never would have seen if we didn’t have term limits. Also, wants wrong with some healthy competition? Yes, we could have someone in office that is doing a really good job but I’m sure that there is always someone who might do it better. So if someone thinks that they really know what’s best then why not fight for it.
In my opinion, I think that there should be no limit on terms in W. Va., or in any area. However I do think that elections should be held at a certain time- maybe even yearly for some positions. I feel as though if the legislator is doing well in office they should be able to continue their work, otherwise the election will prove to differ.
ReplyDeleteAs a born and raised West Virginian, I would like to continue to have the state a non-term limit state. Even though my fellow classmates have stated valuable reasons to have term limits I still find myself being against them. My main reason is stated http://www.balancedpolitics.org/term_limits.htm . Having term limits keeps the good legislators from continuing their job because they are forced out due to term limits. I feel as if having term limits takes away from our rights as citizens on electing who we believe will be best in our state legislative: it is as if the government views us as “dumb” or not smart enough to be able to decide who will serve well in office. Some argue that legislators who stay in office for a long term lacks in new ideas, however, I do not find this to be true. Having someone who is already experienced can advance new ideas. Every day the world is changing and a good legislator is changing along with it. They will know how to make new ideas become an actual thing instead of remaining as an idea. Another reason not to have term limits is that a legislator may become lazy towards the end of their term. For example, towards the end of their term a legislator may decide not to care about what is best for the state because they know that their term will be up soon and their decision may not seem to matter in their opinion. Not having term limits will also help advanced a legislators knowledge. A rookie legislator may not know as much as he or she wishes, however as the years pass he/she will learn every single day. An example to be against term limits is Ronald Reagan. He may have been a president but the argument over term limits stands in the same position. Some argue that Reagan was one of our best presidents, should he have been only limited to two terms? One main thing he did as President of the United States was turn around the economy; which lead to his landslide of re-election in 1984. Did he deserve to not have a chance to stay in office due to a term limit? No, he did not; the US citizens should have had the chance to reelect him once again. This also stands for the state legislators. I strongly believe that term limits should not exist and legislators should be given the chance to prove themselves throughout the years and also keeping the US citizen’s right to vote a legislator into office as many times as they feel necessary.
ReplyDeleteI think term limits should be instituted in West Virginia. I think having citizen legislators would reduce corruption. People who hold office for a long time/ make it their carrier sometimes lose sight of what they’re in office for, to help the citizens in their state. Some let the power get to their head and instead of focusing on getting laws passed to help the citizens they pass laws to advance their carriers, or for money. Having a citizen in office they will most likely be in office to help the people of the state, they will also be more informed with the major issues of the states.
ReplyDeleteI think that West Virginia should not have term limits. I believe they limit freedom of speech. Those that are elected for many terms are the ones the citizens want in office. It is the right of each citizen to vote those into congress whether it be in the senate or house. If a state legislature is doing a supurb job at representing his/her constituents then it should only deem necessary that he/she stays in government. When the individual goes against the constituents then elections should be the process for replacing them. It is the constituent’s responsibility to put a representative in office. Furthermore, term limits give power to lobbying groups. It may take a state legislature a few years in office to be elected to an congressional office. By placing term limits, they are at the mercy of lobbying groups to achieve tasks. Lastly, if state legislatures have to be replaced under term limits, the incumbent party could put all efforts into electing a new successor in order to keep the incumbent party in power. It could spur a polarized legislature and put congress in stalemate.
ReplyDeleteI believe that having term limits would defiantly benefit West Virginia. One of the main reasons for this is to get new ideas flowing through the legislator. If someone gets reelected repeatedly, no matter how popular they are, it always helps to have new ideas being tossed around. Even if a person likes there legislator a new person might have an idea that you never would have thought of if they weren't campaigning. Another reason is that this will help reduce corruption. If someone gets repeatedly reelected they are more likely to become corrupt. They will start feeling like they are invincible and try to make more money then they already do. If there is constant change then there wont be time for businesses to target a legislator and corrupt them. For these reasons and many more term limits should be enforced for the state of West Virginia.
ReplyDeleteI am going to take a firm stance against legislative term limits, because, first and foremost, I think it is an infringement upon voter rights. While supporters of term limits substantiate that they successfully prevent scoundrels from monopolizing positions of power, the obvious flip side to the argument is that term limitations prevent good politicians from maintaining their seats in Congress. Furthermore, if a politician was known to be engaged in shady motives while serving their term, the voting public would not re-elect the candidate. One of an election’s multiple purposes is that it serves as a filtering process for bad politicians, and it maintains the term longevity of politicians that are making substantial progress in Congress.
ReplyDeleteIn agreement with the provided article, a term limit is a reflection of distrust for the voter’s ability to intelligently reelect or vote out of office politicians that have or have not shown consistency in legislation during their term. Several classmates commented on the use of term limits to eliminate dishonesty among members of Congress, which proves there is a common stigma that voters do not have the knowledge needed to make an informed decision while in the voter’s booth. This is an absurd concept that overlooks the ability of an American to exercise their most basic freedoms. Ultimately, the chances of a term limit preventing a corrupted politician from serving again are as low as the voters choosing a corrupted replacement.
A prime situation that exemplifies the benefits of allowing a member of congress to serve multiple consecutive terms would be West Virginia’s own Senator Rockefeller. The senator’s progression while in office is a direct result of his unlimited terms, and the West Virginians’ ability to re-elect him indefinitely. Arguably, a Congress member’s impact is correlated to their knowledge gained while in office, and their learned wisdom of the ins and outs and loopholes of the government. This experience does not come from limited terms and rapid transitioning of Houses. Instead, it comes from a consistency of their duration in office, and the resulting continued support of their affected constituents.
Mariah Mandy
I do not believe that term limits for legislators would be beneficial for the state of West Virginia. The proponents for term limits on this blog see it as an opportunity for diversity and younger ideas in the capitol. Term limits could very well be used in order to combat the incumbent advantage, a political advantage that in my opinion hurts West Virginia’s social and economic progress. That being said I believe that term limit restrictions are not the proper way to go about said progress. I believe a candidate that is capable of ousting an incumbent is going to be of a much higher caliber than a candidate that merely replaces a legislator who must retire. These candidates will run on campaign promises and hold strong values on certain issues, if they won an election on the basis of these promises than I believe they will be much more likely to deliver. This is in my opinion the true basis of the democratic process, electing a candidate because the times have changed, not because a term limit is up.
ReplyDeleteBased on the arguments, I would not want West Virginia to have term limits,
ReplyDeleteTerm Limits create a lame duck effect on legislators who are serving their last term. There is an incentive to basically do whatever they want once they get elected. This can lead to politicians acting in complete self interest and complete disregard for the constituents.
Secondly, term limits are completely hypocritical of democratic principles. If people want someone to represent them, then there should be no legal objection despite the number of terms served.
Thirdly, term limits prevent legislators who are experienced from passing legislators. Legislators with years of experience can get legislation passed using the channels that years of experience can help do. Term limits prevent this and gives more power to lobbyists and those who try and influence legislators.
I am not in support of term limits in any elected position. Term limits as the author of the anti-term limits article pointed out it would seem to be rather undemocratic. Term limits also reduce the number of experienced politicians that have better knowledge of the complexities of bureaucracy. The lack of term limits would to me seem to be an incentive for politicians to keep “honest” and act in the interest of the people who elected them.
ReplyDeleteTerm limits in my mind sort of defeat democratic principles in that the people are limited in who they can elect. If a politician performs his role to the liking of the majority of his electorate why can’t the people keep him in office as long as they approve of him? The example of FDR is a good example of this principle. FDR was elected four times because to people like him and they kept him in office as long as he ran for it. While incumbents may have an advantage in elections it is far from unprecedented for an incumbent to be unseated in an election (presidents and legislators). That fact would at the least seem to weaken the argument that not having term limits creates an environment where incumbents are unbeatable.
Not having term limits keeps valuable experience in elected positions. I would disagree with the statement from the pro-term limit article that the operations of our legislatures are significantly less complex than is apparent. The operation of a government particularly at the national level would by its nature be a least fairly complex verging on completely unwieldy. That being said I think the processes of governing could be simplified or at least made more efficient, but I believe that it would require substantial experience on the part of at least some of the legislators to do it.
I would think that term limits would be counterproductive for trying to improve the quality of legislators and how well they serve the people. I think the lack term limits encourages legislators to act in the best interest of the people. As they would always have the opportunity to run for re-election they would have to act in a way the people would support. I think that an increase in the length of terms would be far more effective in encouraging good legislation. A greater term allows for more time between re-election campaigns and would remove some of the pressure on legislators to act only in the interest of their constituents. Also, I believe that the practice of gerrymandering, that creates extremely partisan districts, leaves less room for moderates and therefore less compromise in legislatures making them less productive and beneficial to the people.
I've seen a lot of people posting about their citizenship in this state or another, but I don't really think that addresses the issues. While I didn't particularly find the links of use, I do know about a few cases of corruption, especially when caused by the "status quo" that seems to be created by having a public figure in office for so long.
ReplyDeleteThe incumbent is naturally harder to vote out of office, and after a certain period of time serious candidates cannot be found to run against them. Robert Byrd is a good example of this. While he did many great things for the state, in his latter years it may have been better to step down and allow another to take place.
An example of corruption in politics is of Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards, who was elected at three different points. While not in the legislature, his "good ol' boy" style of doing things meant he had an undue level of influence in the state and was later even convicted of racketeering. New people bring new ideas and, good or bad, those are what we need.
Evidence of the design of our system to be naturally limited by those involved in office are the actions of early founding figures, who left office after a certain point in time. If the lack of term limits for legislatures in many states was no something both parties enjoyed it would not exist, and this is evidenced by the term limit on the President imposed shortly after FDR's time.
In short, a lack of term limits changes the political culture of a state or region and concentrates power in the hands of a few. There is no shortage of people who will run and, if they are no good, term limits would ensure that they leave office even if they are clever enough to hold the hearts of the people.
After reading and thinking over arguments on from both sides, I guess I am not a supporter of term limits. Maybe to avoid complacency among office holders there should be more frequent elections. However, if the same candidates are continuously elected by the people they represent, I think they should keep their jobs. In all reality, term limits would not improve the quality of candidates.
ReplyDeleteLet me first of all start by saying that I don’t think term limits are good for any type of office and that includes the state legislature of West Virginia. Reading over some of the responses of my classmates it seems that one of the most popular reasons for people having the same opinion as me is that it would be infringing upon voter’s rights; I couldn’t agree with that more. If someone is voting for any type of political office and some rule tells them the person they wanted to vote for can’t run any more, I think that is not at all how it should be.
ReplyDeleteI actually wrote a paper about the 22nd Amendment (limits presidential terms to two) last year in pols 102 and was forced to do some serious research on whether or not it would be good for the highest office in the land. The same things I said in that paper can be applied to this discussion. One of the reasons I said that presidential term limits should not exist at all is because it denies the people what they want. Is it a guarantee that if Barack Obama or some other president tried to get a third straight term they would win it? No, of course it’s not a guarantee. But if Obama or for example Bill Clinton wanted to run for three straight terms and the party wanted to nominate them again, why shouldn’t they be able to? Ultimately in our democratic society it is up to the people to vote for whoever they want to vote for and if they want Barack Obama to run for a third term and he is voted in using the electoral college just like every other president, he deserves to keep the office.
All of these things I said about not limiting presidential term limits can be directly applied to this discussion about term limits for West Virginia legislators. My opinions do not change despite the obvious differences between the office of the President and the office of a WV legislator.
What's with all the West Virginia natives beginning their comments with "As a West Virginian, born and raised..."? The fact that some of you were born here hasn't really seemed to affect your knowledge of how state and local governments works, so I'm not sure I understand why you have to specify that.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I believe that terms for members of Congress should be extended to six years, but there should be no reelections. Paige made the point that in the case of Robert C. Byrd, he was elected over and over because his constituents loved the work he did for the state. However, according to Zac, two years isn't nearly enough for a representative to make any long-term changes. In fact, career politicians (Like Bachmann, Boehner, Pelosi, etc.) spend most of their term pandering to their voter base and preparing for reelection, because they're afraid of losing their jobs. I think that extending terms to six years and limiting terms to one, with no reelections, would solve most of these issues. Six years in office is plenty of time to complete any long term projects, and if representatives aren't worried about losing their voter bases or not getting reelected, they'll be more likely to make lasting changes.
Term limits will also pave the way for newcomers into politics, because preventing the same people from getting reelected over and over makes it difficult to try to preserve a status quo at the expense of positive changes to the political system. Rotating people out of office regularly would also encourage voters to educate themselves about legislative candidates and election issues, rather than voting for the same old dudes because that's what they've been doing for the last decade.
First, thank you for mentioning that it is really pointless to say you are born and raised in WV because it really doesn't impact the arguments for the most part.
DeleteAs for your argument that longer terms means they would be less distracted; but then wouldn't they also have to be more concerned about what they will be doing after their term is up? They will either have to find another office to be elected for or be jobless altogether, both of which seem far more distracting in my opinion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReid Widders
ReplyDeleteThroughout the decades there has been much debate on the topic of legislative term limits, however I believe this topic is much more relevant today than it has ever been before. In the United States politicians running for office has been transformed from a once prestigious civic duty to what William Domhoff would state in his award winning book Who Rules America? The Triumph of the Corporate Rich, a battle between the extensive monetary war chests of the corporate elite. Although, Domhoff writes from a federal level much of the information can be easily related to state and local government as well.
My main reasoning on having legislative term limits are simple. With these term limits the legislature can plan on having fresh, rested, and perhaps more motivated new congressmen every couple of sessions. Granted, one would lose some of the leadership and experience, but as long as the limits were something around four or five consecutive terms then there should be enough older politicians there to help guide the newly recruited congressmen. Also, this would hopefully slow down the much too cozy friendships we see between lobbyist/special interest and senators. My hope would be that no longer would super PACS be able to buy their way to the floor.
Lastly, I think it would make the legislature more responsive to the will of its constituents. When new senators are required to run every couple of sessions it would allow for new names to be given a chance to run on platforms and policies instead of solely name recognition. Most incumbents in many states win most easily because of name recognition. People tend to vote for a name they have heard before no matter if they know what those politicians feel on policies or not. For all these reasons I would hope that most states would put a limit on legislative terms. I do not want a low limit because experience is also a necessity, but lifelong politicians are given too many ample opportunity to be persuaded by outside influences such as money, and has their political careers go on this only becomes more inevitable.
I have had a hard time deciding where I stand on this issue, especially after reading all of the articles and comments from my classmates. I can clearly understand both sides of the issue. That being said I do support term limits in West Virginia. The main reason for this is because of the corruption that can occur within the government. The politicians that know so much about budgets and spending can much more easily hide things from the public. I know a popular argument against term limits is that we are all smart enough to get someone out of office that we do not like. However, most people cannot name their legislators. So how do we expect those same people to know they want them out of office? Another reason I support term limits is because new politicians will hopefully mean new ideas.
ReplyDeleteI also hope that new politicians means new ideas as well.
DeleteLike many great political debates, I can see both sides of the "term limits" argument. There are valid points on each side, as is made evident by the two debates you linked to in the prompt. Each person thinks he/she is 100 percent correct, and why not? There are valid points to be made each way.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I find myself leaning in favor of term limits. A two-year term limit, as mentioned by other students, is much too short, whereas a six- or eight-year term limit would suffice. Iman pointed this out, and I agree wholeheartedly. A legislator needs enough time to get something done (without worrying about re-election as soon as he/she gets into office) but they also need to be limited.
Perhaps this is my own pessimistic view, but I think legislators are more likely to engage in corrupt activities the longer they are in office. As they become more and more popular with the people (and they are obviously popular if they keep getting re-elected and re-elected, like Robert C. Byrd), the masses will vote for them regardless of their current thoughts/plans. At that point, people are voting for a celebrity rather than a legislator.
Because of this, the legislator could do whatever he/she wanted and maintain the vote simply through name recognition and campaigning.
Yuck.
A term limit would reduce this possibility and freshen up the legislature every few years, ensuring the most determined and proactive legislators occupy the state's seats.
Furthermore, as legislators grow older, I feel they are more and more out of touch with current issues. Think of it this way: They've spent their entire lives trying to get elected. To get elected, they had to be super strong on the current issues of that day. They had to know the current laws and hot-button topics inside and out.
But times change.
Sure, they can learn everything that is happening and keep up, but can they compete with somebody who is hungry and trying to break into the game? Can they accumulate the knowledge of a younger legislator who grew up with the current issues and devoted his/her life to them? Doubtful.
I think term limits would ensure less corrupt, more capable legislators. This does, as Adam Woodring said, limit our democratic freedoms (why can't we elect who we want when we want?), but eight years or even 12 years is plenty of time for a legislator and more than fair. Let's not pretend like this is a dictatorship; we are still voting for the new legislators, after all.
Freshening up the cycle and making sure we have the best-qualified representatives trumps the other arguments in my eyes. I respect the opinion of the other side, and I certainly see where they are coming from, but I feel it is flawed at its core, as it promotes corruption and name recognition over tangible qualifications in prospective candidates.
On the issue of term limits for WV leadership, I would like to enlist the help of Italian author and noted communist, Italo Calvino. In Calvino's parable "Beheading the Heads" the leadership of the town is replaced every four years through a vote. The leaders, who must give up their seats after their terms, are summarily executed in a dignified ritual. The participants in government were proud to serve their time and the violent ritual that ends their term is seen as a sort of sacred or revered act. While the parable is quite brutal it does suggest something crucial to the idea of career public service: the idea of legacy.
ReplyDeleteAny politician will tell you (though not necessarily demonstrate) that they make decisions based upon how history will reflect upon their deeds. Most people who have accomplished much in their lifetime will focus their remaining years trying to polish off any stain in their legacy before they mosey off towards the sunset. A desire to be remembered fondly, as an important person is a very basic urge and one that Calvino suggests may be the drive that allows experts and great thinkers to enter into the world of public service. So how do we keep leaders focused on their legacy rather than power? I think it's a no-brainer that, given power of any kind, a person will likely attempt to cling to that power. Removing the corruptibility of a leader is essential to good governance and I believe a pursuit any James Madison or Ben Franklin would say is an adamant one. Calvino's solution, execute the leader at the end of his term in order to keep that leader solely focused on his legacy and what he or she can accomplish, is an extreme solution but one that raises an essential question about term limits and the nature of power. It begs the question of leadership: What is your reason to continue seeking office? What are your aims, are they personal or universal?
My solution: one term maximum for any elected leader, cannot seek reelection again. It would encourage more experts to be involved with politics as well as get rid of career politicians. It will keep government dynamic, diverse, and constantly changing. It would also change much of the way bureaucracy and the way the lobbying industry works, in that it will be more difficult for new leaders to build relationships with businesses. The idea of reelection undermines democracy and reinforces the notion that politics is a game only a select few can play.
Let me start by saying I believe any position of power in a government structure should have perm limits. My reasoning for this was said best by Steve Accardi in his earlier post. The founding father's themselves recognized that it was not beneficial for the country as a whole for one person to be in office forever, putting term limits on their own powers.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that if the candidate continues to get reelected, the people must want he or she in office is also somewhat void. There are many presidents in the history of the Unites States of America, that had term limits not been implicated, would have been continually elected. Moreover, I do not believe term limits restrict the implication of projects and policies. If Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher can tear down the Berlin Wall in one term, your state legislature can help balance a budget.
My final argument for term limits lies within our state of West Virginia, people age. Senator Byrd was continually reelected, maybe because of name recognition brought about by many years of support, lobbying, and some may take it as far as state tradition. But, by the end of his career, not only did he in a sense 'own' the state, but his health and ability to fully carry out the tasks of the office were rightfully questioned.
I am not a citizen of West Virginia so I don't know as much about the state government here as many of those who have lived here their entire lives. From my understanding I would have to say that having term limits would be beneficial to the state as there seems to be more pros than cons in this debate. Having term limits first and foremost allows for a more "personable" legislature as the room isn't filled up with the same big name leaders. Citizens get a different outlook and the legislature may lean towards making decisions that are going to benefit the people of the state rather than personal gains of the legislator. Secondly, limiting term limits I believe would help to really eliminate use of time on things such as pork barrel spending and more on pertinent issues since the time limit in office may be cut down. With shorter terms, legislators may also be more susceptible to ignoring media type issues and criticism and focusing more on what is best for the state, especially during the last term they hold in office as to leave with a good light. Most importantly, having shorter terms would definitely help to lend a hand in getting rid of any corruption since new politicians aren't as used to having the power that they do and are not going to exploit it to gain personal benefit as older, loftier members would. Overall, I think that term limits are also important because by not having them, issues of democracy arise and cause tension among citizens.
ReplyDeleteI agree that term limits are reflective of our democratic society and that they serve as check and balances for our political system.
DeleteI believe that legislative term limits should be enforced in West Virginia. After reading both sides of the arguments and got a deeper understanding on the two, the only fair way is to limit the terms or candidates. Having the same candidate in office for continuous years can create corruption and repeated tasks/ideas. If we limit the term of legislatures then this gives us a variety of different ideas and new beginnings. I think sometimes we are scared of change and to take that extra step. But, no matter how popular a candidate was or is there is a new face out there that could do things the same if not better. Having these limits can create a variety of ideas and possibly improve the states for better. Term limits would also force Congressmen to work harder to get the job done and pass the regulations. It would make them focus on getting their jobs done before the time comes. I think it is a well-rounded good idea that could benefit us in the long run.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Strejeck
I for the most part can see both sides of the arguments that my peers and the articles have made. While it is true that term limits may make it difficult for politicians as far as careers, it is also true that they allow some power to be given back to the voters who could then elect new representation every so many years. It would also, I believe, force voters to be less ignorant during elections and learn exactly they were voting for rather than simply reelecting the same individuals over and over simply because they recognize a name or maybe a key platform.
ReplyDeleteAt first I would have said I was entirely against term limits, but now I'm slightly more hesitant. One main reason I originally would have opposed the idea was simply because the lack of knowledge and seniority meant that Congress would lose experience. But that issue was confronted in one of the articles, saying that with limits the Congress would be forced to focus and get things accomplished since their is no time or space for egos and playing games. I found this very logical and would have to say I agree this would be true. I also agreed that this would be some fresh experience from the real-world into politics rather than having senators and representatives who hardly ever even see the states they represent.
I also strongly believe term limits would be good as far as increasing voter awareness and also giving them power to eliminate people who, for some reason, just get endlessly reelected like Robert C. Byrd or Rockefeller for WV. People can't even name their ideals but they just thought they do well for the state. If the representation is constantly changing perhaps that would force consistently ignorant voters to find out what it is they're voting for since there will always be fresh candidates.
Before reading several of the articles I was in agreeance that term limits should exist in order to limit the possibility of tyrant politicians and to allow for a change in thinking. Also, term limits bring about a positive that they allow politicians to hold office for an extended period and they are able to gain knowledge about the processes of how to get things done in office.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading several of the articles I now see why term limits have the potential to be irrelavant. In the article, written by Thomas Suddes, he states that elections are simple term limits in them selves. Clearly if a representative is doing a poor job in office it is our duty as citizens not to re-elect them. However, can we really trust the public to not re-elect those that are doing a poor job?
That is why I do not agree that we should not have term limits in place. I believe they bring about more good then bad as they allow for the maturation of political leaders in office, without letting them reign for life. Also, if the political leader is doing poor job and still manages to be reelected they will only have a limited time to continue their role.
Our country is founded on a system of checks and balances and I believe that term limits serves its purpose in this system.
I completely agree with you, and to build on your point, not putting term limitations in an amendment keeps the power in the hands of the people and lets them decide who they want representing them in the government. This is important, especially this day in age when the rights of the people are in question more often than in previous years. You made a great point in saying that sometimes the people are not always the most educated or responsible voters, however that kind of risk is what makes our country so great. The amount of freedoms we have should always be protected, and should also be included in the realm of elected officials.
Deletei agree with the statement, "they all for the maturation of political leaders in office, without letting them reign for life."
DeleteLegislative term limits are made with the idea that there will be more citizen representatives and that the current incumbent won’t gain too much power and/or become corrupt. These reasons do not outweigh the consequences that I think term limits bring. With term limits, the legislators who actually are doing a good job get unfairly “punished” by being forced out of office after a certain amount of time. The way to “punish” a legislator who isn’t doing a good job is to elect someone else. The point of the election process is for the people to decide who they want in office. If you don’t want someone in office anymore, simply just elect someone else.
ReplyDeleteA reason Thomas Suddes uses against the idea of term limits is another one that I agree with. He states, “Term limits strengthen Ohio's executive branch and weaken the legislative branch…that means the ideal post-legislature option is an appointment bestowed by the governor, no matter who he or she is.” This is a very valid point. If there are term limits, everyone who is a decent politician will be trying to get the governor job, and demand for the legislator positions will drop drastically. It’s hard to find a really good legislator when no one is that interested in the job.
Lastly, to go along with Suddes’ point, if there are term limits, the more qualified individuals will likely be seeking jobs elsewhere because of the lessened job security. Impressive lawyers and more intelligent candidates will seek office somewhere else where they could continue to serve if the people like what they are doing. People are more likely to remember politicians in office that serve for a longer time simply because they see and hear about them for longer. This is another reason that more qualified individuals would look elsewhere because they want to make a name for themselves, and move up in the political world.
Term limits only bring dryer legislators and also make them more likely to not care about the public’s reaction to their voting when they know that their term is nearly up and that they won’t be able to remain in office any longer. All in all, the cons drastically outweigh the pros when it comes to term limits for legislators.
I strongly believe that legislative term limits are a necessity for the state of West Virginia. This would allow for us to always have diversity, fairness and an assortment of new ideas coming from the government. If we were allowed to keep the same man or woman in office for longer than 8 years we would be stuck dealing with the same issues, disagreements would occur more often, and nothing new or good would come out of it.
ReplyDeleteWest Virginia may be not as populated or large as some other states but it is still important to have terms of limits applied to legislatures. The diversity within the legislative branch must remain high so it can adhere to make sure that the citizens are all being represented.
West Virginia is a very diverse state that has both democrats and republicans whose voices must be heard. If someone takes office and has a very strong republican view for example, many democrats may be stuck having to adhere to that one view year after year. Diversity is needed so both sides can have a chance for change.
An 8-year period should be plenty of time for someone to get what needs to be done, done. If someone is in office longer that, repetitiveness will occur and no new changes will be made in order to better the state of West Virginia.
A term limit is essential for the people, the government and for more accurate decisions to be made. If these ideas and solutions keep coming for the same man or woman over and over again, then the fixation of problems and an assortment of new ideas will never be met. A new legislature after 8 years maximum is essential for the states and the country to run smoothly and for their to be new ideas and solutions for any problem or idea that is occurring at that moment.
Eva Brandt
There is absolutely nothing wrong with enforcing term limits on members of our legislature, whether it be on the state or national level. As a disappointed citizen of our great nation, I have long questioned the effectiveness of certain policies such as the two year limits on members of the House. While there should be a limit to how long an individual can hold power, the time allotted to the House of Representatives is insufficient. It is not long after our congressmen take office that they have to begin campaigning for reelection, which in term shifts their focus from policy making. The absurdity of the two year term could very well have been a catalyst in the ineptitude of our government in recent years. Instead, a longer term allows for more possibilities to right the ship rather than worrying about their job.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do understand the argument that infinite terms are okay as long as the people continually vote for the candidate over and over again (FDR, Senator Byrd), but there are evident consequences in doing so for both the voters and the politician. The longevity of a politician has its ups and downs. In terms of legacy and honor, a seasoned politician will more than likely worry about such things. The argument stems from whether one should cash in their chips after winning a big hand or continue to roll the dice. Unfortunately, many politicians continue to gamble their way through the system. This leads to less than admirable conclusions to their political careers (Byrd, Dingell). More often than not, tenured politicians lose sight of why they're in office in the first place, and use their power to accumulate wealth and other forms of influence. Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" sums this concept up perfectly "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." A two term limit for most, if not all, politicians is more than enough for one to leave their mark on history and legacy. Any more is pushing the boundary beyond what is necessary.
Furthermore, term limits help prevent damage done by political corruption. Citizens might make the fateful mistake of electing a crook as their representative, but they will more than likely vote him or her out of office following their term. Also, a term limit allows for the constant influx of new ideas to spread throughout policy making. If the same old people continue to influence our government, then we cannot possibly hope to continue to improve as a society.
George Cameron Bostic
I have to say that even though this, again, is another issue I am teetering on the fence about, I am leaning more towards the support of term limits. Even though term limits might hinder "good" politicians, they help weed out "bad" politicians even more so which is a far bigger issues. I also believe that term limits help keep factions at bay. The cycle of incoming and out going politicians helps keep government fresh. I saw a lot of students using the Byrd as an example against term limits which I absolutely disagree with and think he is a wonderful example of someone who term limits would have successfully servered the purpose for because frankly there should be an age where politicians are forced to retired. I agree with Allison Knox's statement above where she says that term limits help the system of checks and balances maintain stability. The only reason opposition to term limits I can see would be that maybe politicians would be less likely to function at highest capacity during their last term because they knew they couldn't get re-ellected. But overall, I think term limits help the government function as a democracy.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that term limits are the right choice in balancing out governmental disagreements because you are not going to be able to please everyone and having a limit on how much time served by one candidate can be healthy for the state. Longer termed politicians usually are less likely to vote or sell out out to big companies. People who do not have to run for election every other year are more likely to take money from companies and then will in return help them out in office. It has also been stated that the longer tenured politicians are more likely to do what they believe is best and do what they have promised. It is up to the people to run our government through election, main reason why we are a democracy in the first place. Politicians who are not on a term looking to be elected who now are not staying true to their word change up their campaign for the worse trying to increase their percentage of getting elected now ruins what is currently going on in office. Lastly, I also believe that there should be an equal amount of democrats, republicans, and independents serving in the senate and in the congress, nobody should have control over the other.
ReplyDeleteTerm limitations have undeniable extreme pros and cons. As already presented, term limits can reduce corruption, increase chances for more people to hold office, and increase diversity. However, when changing anything in politics, one needs to question the constitutionality of the change. A bill was proposed to impose stricter term limits on Representatives and Congressmen. This kind of proposal needs more support than it is getting. It is hard to pass something like this because those voting on it are the ones that would be kicked out of office earlier than planned. It is unlikely that anyone would want to terminate their position that they tried so hard to campaign for any earlier than when they have to. Representative Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) was the one that proposed the bill, with intentions of keeping the confidence in elected officials higher than when terms were more plentiful. This kind of bill does not seem practical, and putting any more limitations on government and increasing its power and taking it from the people who represent a group does not seem extremely constitutional. It would be hard to pass something like this, even if approval of elected officials would potentially increase. On the other hand, there have been bills to take away term limits as a whole, most recently presented by Representative Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.). This has opposite pros and cons of shortening term limitations, which would be the approval would most likely decrease of elected officials as a whole, however could give elected officials more time to complete tasks that would benefit their constituents and the United States as a whole.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/term-limits-bill-congress_n_3148611.html
Personally I don't like the idea of term limits for legislatures. First of all just as Thomas Suddes says in his articles we already essentially have term limits in the form of elections. It holds the politicians accountable to the people. Is the politician is not doing a good job, then he or she gets booted out of office. It keeps the voters in control to get what they want, and isn’t that the point of having a Democracy? To have the decisions made by the people? If the people like someone, then of course they would reelect them. Just like in the case of Robert C. Byrd he had the popular support, and gave the people what they wanted, so he got reelected time and time again. Yes I understand that sometimes the person that the people like may not be the best choice, but that’s why there are elections in the first place, to give people a choice between what’s popular and what’s smart.
ReplyDeletePoliticians who have to deal with reelection will have their people at heart. They will always be thinking about their own people so they will work to make their people happy. They will always be available, and they will actually do what the people want. Especially in the case of lame-duck politicians they wouldn’t care as much about their own constituents instead they would do what they want since they don’t have to worry about being reelected.
Politicians who have been in congress for a while also have the best experience to get the job done. They already understand how to pass laws, and debate effectively, rather than any new politician who wouldn’t even have their feet wet, or have any experience passing laws or understanding a debate.
And also what's the point in going for a job if you know you will definitely be fired eight years down the road? I just feel that it wouldn't get the best possible candidates. Why would anyone intelligent work for a job like that when instead they can become a lawyer or a doctor and make some real money? It would be better too have somebody in power who is actually intelligent, and went to school planning for a future in politics. Someone who actually understands what they need to do once they get into office rather than someone who doesn’t have a clue what’s going on.
Senate seats in both state and local government are meant for older people who want to serve for their government, it is not meant to be a career choice. In saying this I do believe we should have term limits. By setting term limits you lower the chances of corruption and abusive power. When holding office for long amounts of time the chair holder is more prone to being corrupted and agree upon favors and issues that he owes people instead of the best interest of the people.
ReplyDeleteAlso Incumbency advantages for the elected officials give them such an advantage while running for office. With help like Franking, free press, constant campaigning, and pork barreling they are given way too many advantages to make for a fair election.
Also for house members they get reelected every two years so they campaign until november and start there position in january of the new year. Giving them only 1 year to get their job done until they have to start campaigning again for the primary. So they are constantly worrying about getting reelected instead of their job. By setting the term limit the chair holders could worry about issues more and less about getting reelected.
While Thomas Suddes sets forth some interesting ideas regarding term length, he does not sufficiently make his case to the point that I agree with him. One of the arguments that he gave (and is given commonly in this debate) is that having term limits is elitist because people objectively evaluate each candidate and can decide whether they feel it appropriate to vote him/her into office again. In my experience this is not the case. One of the problems with no term limits is the formation of political legacies that are common in traditional political cultures. As we have seen, this generally leaves the gate for corruption wide open. State governments are intended to represent the common interests of the working class, requiring a “citizen legislature” to represent these interests sufficiently. While term limits are important for state governments, I don’t believe them to be nearly as important to national governmental positions. This is because they have more unbiased checks in at the national level (in the forms of others states), whereas it is easy for bonds to form over decades in the “smoke filled rooms” of the state legislature.
ReplyDeleteThis is the summation of the first part of my argument in favor of term limits for the West Virginia legislature. This is also particularly important when you consider the relevant history of corruption in West Virginia politics. A history of corruption has existed for more than a century, and is still prevalent in some of the less populous counties. Even last election cycle is was revealed that Lincoln county (a county with a long history of corruption) had new ethics violations among the political leaders of the county. One of the best ways to buck this trend is to force “new blood” into the state legislature every couple of years. This could go a long way in stopping ingrained patterns of corruption.
Lastly, my argument will present information that term limits help minorities and women. In traditionalistic cultures it is easy to see how women and minorities can be left out of the loop, particularly if a legacy has spanned a generation or more. Viola Wild presents a case study in the Michigan Journal of Public Affairs(1) that at least provided some anecdotal evidence for the case that term limits offer more diversity in the state legislature. Overall, term limits on the national level benefit more from knowing the “ins and outs” of government and state legislators benefit more from having a citizen legislature that does not form ingrained alliances.
1. (http://www.mjpa.umich.edu/uploads/2/9/3/2/2932559/term_limits.pdf)
Term limits are thought to serve a purpose of reducing corruption in government. I personally am not too sure whether having no term limits would be a great idea. The term limit is there to prevent politicians from constantly playing politics with the people every election season. With no term limit the politicians would only do things that are popular for him so that he would get re-elected. Although this would cause politicians to do what pleases the people, most of the time that is not the right choice to do. For example, President Bush closing off his first term as president extended medicaid and medicare and even lowered the age of when people recieve its benefits. This wasnt the smartest decision for the nation to spend more of its money this way but President Bush did this to win over their votes coming into the next election season. The same happens on a state level and that is why I feel that term limits are a good idea. It allows the politician do what he had on his agenda and then leave and allow someone else to push theirs in their terms.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the articles I can understand both sides of the spectrum. In reality though some concerns were more prominent than others. Although it would be ideal for a candidate that is doing a tremendous job to be permitted to stay for as long as he/she chooses, the ability to get rid of a candidate who does not measure up to the standards of the people deemed more important in my eyes. It is imperative for the people to be able to have a say in the matters of how they are governed. I believe that there should be term limits established in West Virginia. Society and the world changes from year to year, having the same candidate that operates the same way and has their mind set in stone could keep the state at a stand still. I believe that change is good and new perspectives and methods should always be welcomed. Without term changes, power problems and intimidation can occur. If the same individual uses intimidation tactics they could be in office for a long time when they are undeserving. For example when Cory Booker ran for mayor of Newark he tried to take down Mayor James who had so much power in Newark that people were afraid to go against him. This is just one case where the lack of term limits is detrimental to the citizens. With that being said West Virginia should use term limits.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eva, term limits are significantly more beneficial then hindering. It keeps the government refreshed and after every term that comes to an end optimism is spread with the new elected official.
ReplyDeleteThe term limit should be no longer then eight years. Every elected official should be able to execute plans and meet goals in that time frame. However, I disagree with Allison, the term limit does not hinder the elected official but gives time frames and motivation to take a proactive role in their government. If the elected official had no limit on his term he may lack motivation and desire to meet goals.
malika mccray
ReplyDeleteAfter reading through everyone thoughts and opinions I remained with a bitter sweet answer. I say this because first I thought it should be term limits because sometimes we as states need change. we need other opinions and others perspectives on certain things. I believe change is good because it broadens horizons in the legislative. it open more spots for diversity which are within minorities and even women would have chance to stand for legislative.it has always been a limit on women in work field. I personally believe that giving someone so much power for continuing terms is kind of selfish, too much power for a person can run that "power" in a whole. the article even states that minorities women has been shut down for several terms. it also stated that the debate on national and state legislator started many debates because people are tied t their opinion. in the article it stated that Similarly, Edward H. Crane, President of the Cato Institute, testified before a congressional subcommittee that
women and minorities fare better in open seat races and that term limits would “enhance the competitiveness of
elections and... increase the number and diversity of Americans choosing to run." However in West Virginia I do not see this happening because it's still a lot of racism here and more than likely no minorities would be able to get in office. To go back to my idea I pointed out that its bitter sweet because as you know somebody could be doing a good job in office and maybe increasing and making things happen in a positive way, but there term may be up. that change that they saw was happening would never happen because of the timing. it takes times to get things passed and talked about , change doesn't happen over night. however I believe it should be a period to do what they have to do to change the world and make society a better place. we all can grow and benefit from it.
Before I read everyone's blogs, I was all for term limits. After all, term limits serve as a safety net for corruption, and allows fresh minded citizens from the private sector to bring their skills into the legislature. In addition, it also encourages and increases the chances for women and minorities to win election. So, in theory, term limits does allow for greater representation among the people.
ReplyDeleteHowever, having term limits also has its set of drawbacks. Logan Hellfrich pointed out two key points from Suddes' article that must be given great thought. The first, is that legislative term limits weaken the legislature. Its common sense. One way to put this into perspective is to think about if your boss only has one week left before he is fired. Since you know any repercussions from your actions will only carry on for a week, your behavior will probably change; you may speak your mind more or etc. Okay, now think of it in this perspective..Your boss will be there for quite some time, and in one month you will have reached the maximum number of years you can work before you have to leave. What is the significance of this? Well, it takes time to get good at anything, regardless of what it is. Therefore experience is vital. So, in having term limits, we are trading out our experienced legislators for a fresh crop of rookies.
I agree with this post completely. I actually referenced this post in the analogies that were used as well as main points that were made via the articles that were available to us. Overall, I have the same stand point.
Deletemu link was http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/research/topics/documents/TermLimitsDiversity.pdf
ReplyDeleteI think that in the state of West Virginia that there should be term limits. I am not sure how long the would be but i think that they are necessary. to make sure that the right things get accomplished in the right way. I do not see anything wrong with term limits. With term limits it ensures that one person dose not get to powerful in his/her position and it helps to stop corruption. Some people might argue that we have a democracy and the people that get voted in every time is by our choice and if we dont want them in anymore then we can just stop voting for them. With that argument i agree and in some sense thats right but after being in office for how ever long you are you tend to gain more power and connections and at the end of the day its polotics and in my view there is a lot of corruption in our governement and by just having it set up that way it could easily get manipulated for that certain person to some how get elected again. Whether it be from popularity more funds or what ever it may be, Where as if you have a term limit it does not matter and there is no way around it.You do what you have to do in the time period that you are giving and when your term is up its up to the next person. This way it stops corruption and abuse of power
ReplyDeleteI think the state of West Virginia should have term limits in place just like the United States have them set in place for presidential elections. West Virginia would benefit by having 8 years maximum in office for many reasons. One reason is to have someone come in with new ideas to bring to the table. If the same person was in office for repetitive amount of years the same ideas and perspectives would be available and that could weaken the state. Also, having the same person in office could lead to dictatorship. The United States has worked so hard to be a free nation and without term limits all the hard work could go to waste. Even though this is an extreme example we have seen it happen and still continue to happen throughout other countries in the world. Furthermore, because the United States has so many diverse people it is important to keep diversity in the office as well. I can see both sides to state limits but I truly believe that the state of West Virginia would really benefit by having two, four year terms set as their term limits for people running or in office.
ReplyDeleteWhenever there is a debate within the government, there will always be two sides to the story. When it comes to expanding the limit to which each politician can serve for, i believe that the government should extend the amount of time one can be in office from 8 years to 12 years. In my opinion this would help the government create more stable candidates. If the people want to re-elect someone to serve for that many terms then that candidate must be doing a lot of good for his/her state. The only problem that this causes is that it could potentially create "legacies". So while extending the amount of time one can serve would be beneficial if you found a very good candidate, it could also be very harmful. If legacies are created and they have a good voter base then that specific candidates ideas will be brought forth for over a decade.
ReplyDeleteOn the other side Thomas Suddes states that we basically have limitations within the government. If the politician is not doing his job or the people are starting to get upset with his decisions, there is always a chance that he will get impeached or kicked out of office. So there is unofficial limitations within the government.
So there are two sides to the limitations of terms. Some state that 8 years is plenty of time to get what you want to do in office done. Others believe that if the politician is doing well for its state for 8 years straight then why shouldn't he be able to keep doing good his state.
In my opinion, expanding the time that a politician can serve should be beneficial but i believe that they should not be able to run for the same office, unlimited times. This would help create more stable candidates for each state while not creating legacies.
Prior to further research on term limits I thought they were pointless. After more research I have came to the conclusion that term limits are a necesty in our governments legislature. The main point for this is that it will allowe highly motivated people a chance, rather then people who are looking for a career in politics. By using Term Limits it limits the time people have in office there for making them work harder in a short period of time. I believe eight years is fair. Term Limits also limit corruption by constantly shuffling the deck of politicians. Term limits are essential for a stronger government.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading brief articles and the blog posts of my colleagues, I can’t help but believe that term limits should be essential in the state of West Virginia. As a resident in West Virginia, I feel that some sort of term limits can create equality and diversity. I live in a diverse state. All citizens, Democrats and Republicans, need to be heard. If the state has the same legislature for over 10 years, how can everyone be heard? The same disagreements and problems would continuously repeat if we had the same man/woman running the state over a large period of time. Instead of focusing on one side of issues, term limits would help guarantee fairness. Popular legislatures win elections. Running against someone who has this upper hand can be intimidating. Therefore, some term limits need to be set (but to an extent) for diversity to exist. I personally do not believe that the same legislature should run the state any longer than 10 years.
ReplyDeleteI believe that term limits for politicians are a good idea and that they give said politician enough time to implement a plan or strategy upon which they were probably elected for in the hopes of accomplishing. Some of the other students stated that term limits might not give politicians enough time to accomplish what they need to do, however these term limits are set in place in order to make sure that one person is not in charge of anything for too long, giving other citizens a chance to make a difference if they so choose. consecutive terms give anyone enough time to accomplish something if they have the right plan set in place, and regardless of what is accomplished, you would still be setting up the next elected politician for success to further continue with the plan (that is if it is actually a good one). People in politics sometimes get too comfortable, they build relationships with the citizens and can lock in the voters approval, making consecutive terms highly likely. In West Virginia Robert c. Byrd was elected many times, due to the affection he gained from the people of West Virginia, this is not always a good thing, although he did a great job of fundraising for the state, this does not give anyone else a chance to make a difference in this state and possibly do an even better job, because we would never know since no one else would get elected with no term limits. It also lessens the probability of corruption and political foul play because politicians will not have unlimited time to make relationships with the wrong people and accept deals that are considered unethical.
ReplyDeleteWith any political issue there is going to be two sides. I have lived in West Virginia all of my life and I believe that are rules should stay the same and that this state should continue to not enforce term limits. There are many reasons as to why term limits should not be enforced. Some of the reasons that I have found came from: http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/07/the_case_against_legislative_t.html. First, it makes sense that if a politician is doing a poor job in office then citizens and voters should be able to see that and they have the choice to reelect him or her, or vote them out of office. One reason that comes from the cleveland article is cited as No.6: That reason implies that voters are too stupid to judge and actually examine a politician in office. It seems as if they would just vote anyone into office. To me, it seems like that most citizens that do vote actually know something about who they are voting for and are not just doing it to do it. I also feel that if a politician is only in office for 2 or 4 years they may have the mindset that they do not have enough time to accomplish any goal that is going to take a while to process. If they think they might only be in there for two years or know that they can only be in there for two years they are probably not going to try as hard to accomplish something. Another student used Robert C. Byrd as a great example as to why we should not have term limits and I completely agree. He was in office for numerous years and if he did not get all the time in office that he did then he would not have been able to accomplish much, and citizens were able to keep reelecting him.
ReplyDeleteI believe that West Virginia should remain a state that does not have term limits. Seeing that the states are a great laboratory use for political scientists, we can already see great examples of why West Virginia is doing well without term limits. If we look at Robert C. Byrd, we know he was well-loved because of all the funding he brought to the state. Part of the reason he was able to do this is because of the amount of time he spent in his position, and got to know the nooks & crannies, the ins and outs and how to persuade people to give his state money. The people of West Virginia have the option to tell their elected officials if they like them or not by either re-election or voting them out. The people can vote for themselves, and do not need a law saying that someone who is doing a great job needs to leave simply because they have been in the office for too long.
ReplyDeleteThe argument stating that term limits stop corruption and abuse of power does not make much sense in this case because the people of West Virginia can easily stop this themselves by not re-electing a corrupted incumbent. As Zack Veltri commented, the voters create their own term limits and therefore do not need state state deciding them.
As I mentioned before about Robert Byrd, he was able to be successful because of the amount of time given to him to get things done. As this article states (http://www.balancedpolitics.org/term_limits.htm) there are several other benefits to allowing incumbents to stay in their office as long as neccessary. One of those benefits is that they would already have a rolodex of contacts/a solid network to reach out to when something is needed or there is a problem. A newly elected official would have to start basically from scratch. Also, those who do not have a term limit are more likely to be on their toes and continue to listen to the people because they never know when their last term will be. Those with term limits are more likely to ignore the will of the people because they can't go for re-election anyway.
I agree with Julia with her example about Robert Byrd. With term limits, Byrd would not have gotten the chance to become so educated and informed in his position. Because he was given the chance to continue to be voted into the system, he passed much legislation and was able to bring monetary funding to W.Va. Citizens of the US have the opportunity to vote an official in or out of office, so putting term limits into the W.Va. constitution is not a good idea.
DeleteI believe that term limits should be put into effect in the state of West Virginia. There should be no political office that is exempt from this rule. Term limits were established in order for the people to ultimately determine who shall represent them in office and for how long. An official elected 4 years ago may not have the same mindset for the people of today, and vice versa an outstanding officeholder would be able to adjust year to year and be able to efficiently supply to the needs of the people. I can see the ups and downs to this argument as there are valid points on each side. However in the end there must be a set limit on how long the office shall be occupied by the incumbent. How can we allow minor government positions to hold office for multiple terms when our own president cannot run for more than two terms. I'm not saying that these elected officials should not be given any chance due to fear of corruption, that is why we hold elections in the first place, so the people can freely choose the candidate that they see best fit for the job.
ReplyDeleteTerm limits also help to curb corruption in the office I believe. Let's say for example the mayor of morgantown has been reelected for a 3rd consecutive term. He believes that he has no real competition and the people already support him, then who would be able to stop him from implementing policies that only he benefits from. This would be a good time for term limits to be set in place. For example when Cory Booker ran for the mayor of Newark, New Jersey, he was trying to take down the incumbent Mayor James who had accumulated enough power that people were too intimidated to run against him.
I'm not saying that we should place such a small term limit on these offices but we shouldn't put a large limit either, because one discourages corruptoin while the other discourages new candidates and competition.
Jordan O'Brian.
I think that term limits can have a positive influence on state governments, but only if they are reasonable. So much of how legislature works is based on seniority, and having short term limits really handicaps the functioning of legislatures. Having term limits of slightly more than a decade seems like a reasonable idea, since that would allow time for legislators to amass seniority and experience without having them become permanent fixtures in the legislature.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that term limits might unnecessarily remove experienced legislators, I think that the benefits of reducing corruption and introducing new ideas outweighs that drawback. Removing legislators from office after a specific term limit (12 years?) could also help to keep legislatures balanced by preventing one interest group or party from completely dominating legislation with a group of "old hat" politicians.
Having term limits could also help superior third party candidates get elected since they would be more likely to run against competition on equal footing, instead of well-recognized politicians who get elected based purely on name recognition instead of results.
http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume22/Vol22No6/Vol22No6.html
http://restartcongress.org/revolution/arguments-for-term-limits/
I am drawn between both sides of this argument. There are positive and negative aspects that term limits bring to legislature. There are several positive aspects to term limits. Term limits would allow for more variation and diversity with representatives in legislature. We would see more opportunities for women to hold political offices. I also believe term limits would lower risks of cronyism and the practice of senators and representatives receiving payouts by lobbyists to vote or push for certain support or action. With term limits lobbyists would have to form new legislative connections rather than knowing which representatives have continued garnering support. In this sense, term limits would be a powerful tool for battling corruption in areas of high-risk.
ReplyDeleteI do feel that term limits for those who serve in the House or Senate would keep legislators from getting too comfortable with their positions or developing positional feelings of entitlement. I feel that once a Senator or House member realizes that they have a theoretical Congressional seat for life, that they will no longer take things as serious as if they were in a finite or determined period of service. I’m worried that the decisions that long-seating members of legislature make might no longer be for the good of their constituents. Why would a legislator care about how they vote if they have already won the hearts and minds of voters regardless of their past actions or voting record? The risk of long-standing personal bias influencing the legislative branch is a problem seen here. It would be even worse in areas that have been Gerrymandered or re-zoned to keep that long-standing legislator in office. (yes, I know gerrymandering is illegal but it is still widely used)
-Kelsey Haught makes a good point with the website she posted at http://www.perkel.com/politics/issues/limits.htm. I would have to agree with her statement that term limits are negative for politics and “eliminate those who have wisdom and experience from political life.” Why would you want to get rid of someone from a position that they’ve grown to be good at? If specific legislators are good at “playing the game”, then their wisdom and experience should be positively exploited by their constituents by getting continuously re-elected.
Like Trinity Gray posted, I went into this blog assignment thinking I was going to write in support of term limits. For some reason I felt that term limits were a necessary method of “checks and balances” against entitlement and corruption. However, with term limits, we might not have had the finance appropriations or social progress our state has seen with the late Senator Byrd or still-serving Senator Rockefeller, each of which held representation for West Virginia in various offices for nearly half a century. In conclusion, I do not support term limits for legislators in the state of West Virginia. Having someone in office with experience, wisdom, and connections can actually serve as a positive force with respect to the legislative branch of government.
Thomas Suddes makes a good argument against term limits at http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/07/the_case_against_legislative_t.html “Ohio had term limits. They were called "elections." If your state legislator did a crummy job, you could fire him or her at the ballot box.” This is probably the defining reason for my choice in this argument for why West Virginia should not have term limits. We voice of opinions, support, and frustrations through ballot boxes and voting machines. They are how we institute political change or political support and solidarity. Restricting anything with respect to voter representation is a restriction on democracy. Ideals of freedom and democracy tend to lend support for allowing voters to vote for whoever they want to represent them, regardless of how many consecutive terms they are elected. Obviously this doesn’t apply in the realm of the Executive branch.
-David Wells
West Virginia should not have term limits in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteWhile term limits would mentally reduce the idea that corruption may exist in the government, I do believe that getting rid of term limits would have a positive result. Term limits limit potential of candidates because all experience and knowledge acquired over the years cannot be used. If individuals serving are comfortable and weathered to the process used to carry out Congress’s workings, Congress can more efficiently make decisions and progress. Though new ideas and a fresh look at things should be represented in Congress the elimination of term limits does not prevent this from happening. The advantages of wise experienced incumbents perhaps weigh out the advantages of a “fresh look” or younger candidate.
Also, if the government were so corrupt that a vote could not rid Congress of a candidate, there would other policies and procedures rather than a term limit that would need to be fixed. The idea is that term limits are elitist, and they exist because of a preconception that people can’t make decisions for themselves. If people believe that this is why these policies are in place, they are more likely to believe they are NOT capable of making political decisions by vote. With no term limits in place, the people will have to step up and apply knowledge with confidence because there are no limits to fall back on. Just because there are other candidate the people would vote for, doesn’t mean the incumbent shouldn’t have a chance as well. If a satisfactory job has been done, there is no reason why further progress can’t be made.
Term limits also limit voters’ power. Voters want to feel like there vote counts, and what is more limited than a vote with an expiration date. If there is a legislator whom is capable and willing to do a job, there should be no preventative measures in place. The people should use information about a candidate to make decisions regarding office, not whether or not they have been involved too long.
I agree with Trinity Grey when she explained how term limits weaken the legislative branch and make the executive branch more powerful. Lobbyists depend on the trust and relationships built with these legislators and it is hard with them coming and going so frequently.
This debate was not unforeseen by the founding fathers, however was neglected. http://seventyonenews.com/2013/02/26/congressional-term-limits/
In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I dislike, and strongly dislike ... the abandonment, in every instance, of the principle of rotation in office, and most particularly in the case of the President...” . Perhaps the founding fathers didn’t consider the role Congress would play in the future and procrastinated the impending decision.
-Ilyssa Miroshnik
I completely agree with what you said about how term limits limit our voting power. Very good point. Our rights as citizens are being slowly diminished and we need to keep as much power as we can. Voting being one!
DeleteAfter reading both articles, I can see why term limits are so imperative. Having a person in power for too long will not help the government expand. Bringing new people who can bring different and possibly better ideas to the table is essential in the growth of our government and country. Although some legislators can be fantastic at what they do, others could be the total opposite and do a poor job. Allowing term limits to occur means you can eliminate the bad and revote the ones that are doing a great job. This also means you can vote in new people, like women, to be legislators. Term limits allow a change that can only better our country and does not let one person empower over others. It gives everyone a fair chance to be a part of this system.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jordan O’Brien on how West Virginia needs term limits. Having these term limits allows the fluctuation of ideas to increase year to year. Someone who is in office after a long period of time, is not going to bring new ideas to the table but someone who is new and fresh and gets voted in, should have that opportunity to show what they can do.
http://theiowarepublican.com/2010/byrd%E2%80%99s-death-resurrects-term-limits-debate/
ReplyDeleteAs I read over all of the links that you gave me, the prime example I could have thought about was of course Robert C. Byrd, although he is long gone he has done so many things that still impact us as WV citizens today. In this article however they say that term limits are not the answer that voter terms should be considered. He talks about how people who promise them goodies they will gladly re-elect to the office. If you think about it though that's exactly what we want. We want someone who will say they are going to do something and then they follow through. I do not believe that we should have term limits because as in other arguments there are always going to be loopholes to the system. It would almost be a waste of time. If the person is "out of control" then when election time comes we can just put someone else in their seat. As a citizen we know what our state needs best and if we have a candidate like Robert C. Byrd who continuously pleases us and does what we think is appropriate why would someone else need their place. Experience is a good thing to have, with term limits experience is not encouraged. With that being said, his last term served he was extremely ill and confined. In order to do your job best you need to be clear headed and healthy, able to complete tasks that need done. I think that if you are ill and incapable to do what is fit then you need an emergency election, or someone to fill their spot immediately.
I can see both sides of the argument, but I believe the analogy my classmate, Roy Labaton used is a very accurate way to portray why I also believe that West Virginia should not have term limits. Another way to look at this debate is say with WVU football, trying multiple different quarterbacks makes it hard for them to get into a routine and to have time to get what they need to get accomplished; win consistently. When it comes to term limits, I think that they rush certain legislation to be passed. What if a legislator is trying to pass something important that the citizens want to see done, and when it is finally passed that legislator has reached their term limit and someone comes in and completely changes the new legislation put in place by the previous legislator. This inconsistency can cause turmoil in legislation.
ReplyDeleteAnother way to look at it is, the legislators are elected by the people for a reason (just as a quarterback is chosen for a reason) and they were probably elected because they promised to make a change that citizens wanted to see done. By doing so, voters should have the right to be able to re elect officials that are getting the job done, and if they are not, voters should have the power to not re elect them, which give citizens more of a voice.
(http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/07/the_case_against_legislative_t.html)
Makes valid arguments against term limits which align with my own. The one that stood out to me the most is that of saying elections are a way of “term limits” if your legislator is doing a bad job, you can not vote for them for reelection. Along with this, term limits are “elitist” because this says that people are not able to actually judge candidates.
My opinion has danced on both sides of the term limits argument while reading my colleagues posts. After taking the pros and cons of both sides into consideration I believe that term limits are beneficial to state governments. While it does slightly restrict a quality candidate from running for the same office after a certain number of years held at that office it will also prevent that candidate from accumulating too much power during their tenure. If a candidate is in office for so long he will exponentially gain power in his ability to pass legislation and essentially will be able to get just about whatever he wants. Also I think term limits create more democratically fair elections. As many people just vote for a candidate simply because they know their name a term limit prevents this uneducated voting by removing the incumbent that people recognize after a certain number of years.
ReplyDeleteWhen logically thinking over the topic of the necessity of term limits in the state of West Virginia, I am in the middle. When it comes to state legislators, senate, governors, as well as the president, I think term limits are a great way to keep it mixed (from a political stand point). I think that having term limits, limits having one party in office for many years. Citizens are given a new variety of candidates that they can vote on based on their individual political culture. Term limits also serve as one person above posted: "a safety net for corruption". I definitely agree with this statement due to the fact that increased representation is a result of term limits simply due to the fact all genders, and all ethnicities can run for office.
ReplyDeleteThere is indeed part of me that does think term limits are not necessary, especially in the state of West Virginia. Reasons for this are that all these office positions need years of experience in order to be successful. If an individual is elected as the governor of West Virginia, he/she will need some time to understand whats going on, and therefore gain experience in order to do a successful job as a governor. With term limits, that said governor is finally experience after having two terms in office (8 years), and now a new individual is elected into the position. Does that make much sense? I know there are a lot of political arguments to this controversial topic, but why trade out an experience governor who has implemented policies, and helped the state in many ways, for non-expereinced inidvidual that will take some time to become adjusted to the position.
Both sides of the argument present great premises and points that definitely need to be looked at. This is a controversial issue because people feel strongly on both sides of the case. The articles that were provided were very helpful and resourceful, and the post from other classmates were very useful to read as well.
At first, I thought I would be for term limits because of the arguments that they reduce corruption and increase diversity in the legislature; however, once reading over the articles, I agreed with the arguments against legislative term limits. If someone is doing a good job in office, why limit his or her terms? I agree with limiting terms if a legislature is not doing a good job; but that’s when the congress, and the people, can reelect and/or fire that person. I believe that experienced representatives in the legislative system are needed for their knowledge and insight. If legislatures are constantly being kicked out of office, there is no one that is especially qualified to help new legislatures become familiar with the environment and the decisions that they make for the state. Also, it puts a lot more pressure on the lobbyists and special interest groups and also makes it easier for them to influence new legislatures. I am not from West Virginia; however, I believe that if there is a legislature in office that is really good at what s/he does than it should be the peoples decision to decided whether to reelect them or not.
ReplyDeleteI believe that term limits are a great way to keeping the occupation of the legislature fair and fresh. It lets anyone get a chance to run for election and if no one likes the elected official while they are in office then it is as easy as not voting for them in the next election. There is less corruption in the office if time there are term limits. People that have been recently elected may seek personal gain by exposing the system. Term limits make sure that no one gets too much power while in office. I believe that elected officials should have their terms in office regulated because this can prevent the idea of hierarchy or seniority.
ReplyDeleteAfter my research, I have changed my position on believing Term limits would be beneficial to WV Legislators. The primary reason behind this is that term limits encourage legislator nearsightedness and jeopardize the state economical well-being. According to rawstudy.com “Term limits push out those lawmakers with experience and policy expertise that would normally be so instrumental in working out compromises and sound policy,”. This doesn’t go to mention the type of financial conflict can arise due to legislators not being connected with the long-term budget effect. I also believe that a healthy democratic system would eliminate ineffective legislators from voting opportunities. I do believe there should be a set number of years they hold office before another vote is held, but I believe as long as there are serving there state to the satisfaction of the citizens they should be able to stay in leadership. Often times, you are forced to replace the legislator position with someone far less qualified due to lack of talent running for position. I primary stance is why fix something if its not broken?
ReplyDeleteI believe that West Virginia would greatly benefit from term limits, not only for the sake of progressive policy, but also for a change in the overall social atmosphere of the state. Many of the representatives serving in the legislature have been doing so for 10 or 20 plus years; lifetime politicians, if you will. Being a lifetime politicians comes with an overwhelming sense of complacency. Representatives feel so comfortable with their constituency that there policy decisions become matters of habit and routine. This is counterproductive, especially for a state that still lags behind dramatically in social issues. Creating term limits would prevent the dreaded lifetime politician pickle and force more people to take an active interest in politics (since candidates would always be changing).
ReplyDeleteOne example of this would be on the issue of gay marriage. I recently attended an event through WVU for the Faces of Fairness WV campaign. This group advocates for LGBT individuals across the state by lobbying in the state legislature for more gay friendly policy. Their efforts include adoption rights for LGBT couples, anti-discrimination laws in employment, and of course overall marriage equality. West Virginia is one of the least gay friendly states because it lacks so much in LGBT rights policy. Many attribute this to WV’s aging congressional population. Social change, mainly gay rights, is still a relatively new issue and there is no doubt that the younger generation has received it better than others. Its probable that these older representatives have written off new issues such as this because it seems irrelevant to them. It’s not a part of their habitual policy agenda. Creating terms limits would force new, more open minded politicians to become involved with issues such as LGBT policy. In turn, it would force WV to recognize new types of policy and become more socially progressive.
I think that term limits are extremely important in our government. With limitation, our government couldn't give other citizens interest a chance to be used widely. If a republican became a governor in a state and did not have any term limits, the democrat population in that state would not have an equal opportunity to have representation in the future. Some people argue that not having term limits would allow a candidate to grow and gain experience, but if that person is not doing a good job, their term needs to have a limit so another candidate can have the opportunity to represent.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-328es.html
"Term limits further important values of democratic equality and freedom". This is an important quote from this statement on the website I attached. Term limits help chase the goal of democracy.
Whether or not to have term-limits set in the state of West Virginia is a topic that can be debated either way. Advocates for term limits argue that they create diversity in the legislature, like letting minorities and women serve, that they create elections that are more competitive with new campaign runners, and that they reduce corruption in the system (like selfish motives and lobbyists controlling what they want out of government by monetary funds). Advocates against term limits believe that, in fact, diversity and competition will not be increased just because term limits are put in place. Also, these advocates believe that lobbyists and the governor will have more power put in their hands. Personally, I agree with these specific advocates that term limits should not be put in place in the state of West Virginia. In a Boston Globe article, Tom Keane points out that term limits disregard experience and make bad for public policy. It is unethical for an elected official to be forced out of office just because his term is up when he could continue on to positively represent his constituents. It makes bad for public policy because when an elected official is on his way to pass great legislature and a candidate from the opposite party is then voted in, it once again does not properly represent a number of constituents. (http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/06/15/term-limits-are-bad-idea/0LLdLq3y0CcRrClf6gFoYL/story.html). Another reason that term limits are unnecessary is because those elected to office do not call the shots alone. As Keane writes, all proposed legislation by an elector first has to go to a committee (and these committee's are made up of high-ranking members of society). Then these committee's slowly and carefully articulate the legislation and decide if the bill should go to the floor. Thus, the legislator did not singlehandedly put a law into place without this legislation carefully being changed and looked over for its constitutionality. Though it can be argued that having term limits does in fact reduce corruption, it really does not make a difference. Those who come into office with selfish motives will have selfish motives whether or not they are under term limit. "Two of the most powerful and long-serving persons ever to bestride the capitol building, recall that they were booted in the "massacre of 1994" by political novices. The voters, again." (http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=09c15eacf088-4017-91f4-50b2ac74c348%40sessionmgr198&vid=4&hid=121). This article by Gregory Hession points out that committees, justice committees, and voters alike can easily oust a corrupted official even when term limits aren't in place. Having term limits will NOT reduce corruption. In conclusion, term limits in West Virginia are not necessary and elections are in place specifically for the majority of voters to decide who they would like to represent and serve them. By putting a cap on how long an elected official can serve, it is not allowing them to have enough time to do an efficient and effective job.
ReplyDeleteI am extremely biased when it comes to this subject simply because I am from West Virginia, born and raised, and can say I whole-heartedly believe that nothing here changes because of the allowance of terms. If we are talking in a senate sense, though RCB and J. Rockafeller have done good things for the state, I think keeping someone sitting in the senate until they're falling out of their wheelchair is sort of...well wrong. Not to mention not MUCH has changed in the state in years. My own mother has said to me that in 1970-80 that people were still saying "things are going to change here" and have yet to do so. There are plenty of ghost towns, and plenty of empty land that could produce industry, only problem is nobody is willing to change anything. I think term limits would benefit to an extent, however, I think people are perfectly okay with whatever is going on in this so called "state" so ignorance is there. In my opinion though, I think we should be able to limit terms. It makes no room for progress, at least in West Virginia anyways.
ReplyDeleteI believe that term limits in West Virginia would be ineffective. As the article by Thomas Suddes, states, legislators have term limits decided by the people they serve. However, West Virginia had the lowest voter turn out in the November general election (1). While this may seem to disprove the argument that term limits should not be allowed, in a broader spectrum this my help the state. It's common knowledge that West Virginia struggles to improve their education policies and success. Maybe things need to come full circle. If voters continue to neglect their civic duty, unqualified or undesirable people will be elected. Then, perhaps a fire will be lit under West Virginia's school systems. Voter and government education will increase, and then West Virginians will establish the term limits as educated people. Obviously, this opinion is long-term and relatively far fetched, but it's plausible.
ReplyDeleteIn a recent study, West Virginia received a D grade overall on their corruption risk report card (2). By enacting term limits, House members and Senators will be working toward moving to a new position, and not the betterment of West Virginians. After all, the primary goal of elected officials is to get reelected. A house member will not object too much if s/he is planning to run for election in a new position. Furthermore, West Virginia does not need a more powerful executive or governor. West Virginia has bigger problems of their plate, like education and poverty, that need to be addressed before term limits can be questioned.
Sources:
(1) http://theintermountain.com/page/content.detail/id/563002/Low-voter-turnout-a-bad-omen-for-state.html?nav=5009
(2) http://www.stateintegrity.org/west_virginia
Instead of reading an argument for term limits (which I can agree with), I read the Cleveland article against term limits to see the other side. While it makes a decent case, I can still see term limits as a good idea. The article stated that the term limit limited the right to vote. I don't really see how that's possible. I don't think it's right to keep someone i office for years and years if people aren't happy with the job they're doing. Eight years, in my opinion, is plenty of time. The article is concerned about good legislators being retired. Well, if they're truly doing a good job, people will reelect them after their 2, 4, 8 years are over.
ReplyDeleteThe author of the article was also concerned with "rookies" coming into office. I think it's safe to say that voters can form their own decisions and opinions on legislators. I just don't think it's ok to elect someone once and then let them have control for as long as they want. Not having term limits just seems irresponsible to me. We limit our president, granted he has much more power, but it's still all relevant. You can't put one person into a position of power without fear of corruption. The case against term limits makes some interesting points, but they just don't seem strong enough for me.
Very good point about the people re-electing legislators no matter how long the term, as long as they are happy with the job and if they fit the states personality well.
DeleteAfter doing some research and looking at each of the articles that you have posted along with some extra outside information that I have looked up, I could see both sides of the argument on why legislative term limits could be an advantage or disadvantage to a state. From a personal perspective I believe that the pros of having a term limit for our politicians has more benefits to the state of WV than negatives. For example, we should continue to recycle legislatures through our system, we need to see new perspectives in government, we wouldn't want to see the same people controlling and corrupting our state, this leads to narrow minded ideas and laws. With a limit on 2 terms this gives us the opportunity to seek new leaders and hear new ideas, I feel as though if there were no term limits, a legislature could stay a float as representative for 20-30-40 years, this would bring no diversity to our system and would lead to a disadvantage in the long run. Another key reason why we should set term limits is similar to my last comment, in our government if we see the continuous same legislatures we will start to see a shift of power. The powerful representatives will keep gaining more and more power, and the weaker will get weaker. This proves that if the same person holds too much control, then he/she will start to make decisions without any objection. This could prove to be a very risky situation if there are no term limits. Of course there are many more outliers on my opinion on to why there should be limits such as, less area for corruption, a serious lack of diversity, a reduction in equality, etc.
ReplyDeleteThere are many ways of looking at term limitations for legistators. After reading the previous posts and comments, I see that many people are split in their outlook concerning this. For me, I am in favor of these restrictions. Politicians have a reputation for being corrupt, not proactive and becoming lazy. I think that term limitations would solve these issues. Granted, I do see and can understand the views of those who think these limitations take away the power of the people by limiting a good politician from running or restricting one from running again. However, I think comprimise is the answer here. Having term limitations would keep legislators accountable. It would not allow someone to become lazy or corrupt by keeping a new fresh person in office who "the people" elected. Our changing society could keep relivant people in office who are there to make a difference and not because they have been there for years. Elections are a natural way for limitations to be enforced but if there are long or vague limitations then this is irrelevant. Allowing legislators and other politicians for that matter, to be opposed would be a good thing. Thus keeping away from corruption and keeping legislators accountable for their actions and their progress.
ReplyDeleteI believe that legislative term limits would be a smart idea for West Virginia. When you are elected into office you need time to learn what the position entitles and try to understand what the people want you to do and try to make a positive change. But if you haven’t accomplished what you wanted to do in 8 years then at that point I feel like you will lose sight of what the people want. Or another side could be that they get a power trip and let the position get to them. Steve Accardi said, “That there eventually needs to be some type of change.” By that he means that we need diversity in the legislature. Having the same person with the same views for so long will never change the problems that West Virginia is having. The solution is term limits. Term limits will attract higher-level legislatures that have a better picture of what they want to do. If you keep the same person forever all their work will eventually decrease and they won’t try as hard as someone who just got elected and wants to try new things. Basically everything would be repetitive and if there is negative power than the state is stuck with it. This can cause problems with people moving out of the area and it will cause a loss of money. Term limits will increase diversity and cause less corruption. In conclusion I feel that West Virginia should have term-limits.
ReplyDeleteWhat most people assume about term limits is that they prohibit the people from sustaining and being able to re-up on candidates they feel have been or have the potential to be great leaders. Term limits vary across states and are different compared to the national level of government. According to restartcongress.org, with term limits legislatures “will be more responsible toward their constituents because they will soon be constituents themselves” and “with term limits in place, their power will be limited. Candidates will be more likely to run for the purpose of serving the people, and they would have to leave office before corruption dominates their decisions.” Term limits are not a way of holding the peoples voices back, they are a way to set standards and limits on how much power legislatures have. But, some would disagree. Opponents of term limits, according to restartcongress.org, say “Career politicians should be valued for their experience. If we regularly fill a Congressional office with a newcomer, we will lose the valuable experience on-the-job that person can offer in government” and also, “term limits are not necessary because members of Congress must be regularly re-elected. If they are not doing a good job in office, we can simply vote for someone else”. But what must be understood is that newcomers are elected by the people and therefore are a representation of what the people want. Newer legislatures can shake things up and provide an insight unlike incumbents.
ReplyDeleteFor the West Virginia legislature, there have been NO term limits set. What this means is that people who are running for re-election in the House and Senate can run as long as they want to. This is a huge advantage to incumbents because with their advantages, they are more apt to have a lot of lead way during the campaign trail, including the support of other legislatures. This can be seen as either good or bad. Without term limits, constituents become less apathetic and more involved when they see a familiar face being able to provide them with the things they need most as individuals. Not only that, but constituents develop a sense of respect especially to elder to legislatures. One thing that seems to be very prominent and valued among WV legislatures are their more aged persons in Congress. They value the number of years someone has held their position and assert significance on that. But what about someone who has served for 30+ years? Are they a bit outdated? Even with a staff, are they able to keep up with the changing times? How traditional may they have been? After looking over presidential election data on politico.com, I found that WV, as a state, voted Republican (R) in the 2012 Presidential election. But, after doing further research, I found that the state has a majority of Democrat (D) in the state legislature (senate that is). How is it that a democratically inclined state (Dem. held majority from 1992-2013) votes Republican? I don’t want to make any harsh assumptions but this could be seen as problematic. Maybe revamping the legislature is a way to fix this but that requires the people. Maybe term limits would be a good idea for the people and legislatures.
http://restartcongress.org/revolution/arguments-for-term-limits/
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/WV
I am sort of on the fence when it comes to term limits. I am for limits because if someone is doing a bad job then they can only do a bad job for a certain time frame. Also having term limits allows the office to hold different officials to approach different problems. Each individual has their opinion on what is wrong with our government so having different people will help shed light on each problem. However if someone in office is doing a good job then we need them to continue doing a good job. That is where reelection comes in but after their term is up they can not be reelected. We want our country to improve and some people are just better at making that happen than others.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion I think it should be based on the voters to decide whether to keep someone in or vote them out. A vote should be held every so often, depending on which legislator seat, and if we want to keep them we'll just reelect however if we feel they are doing a poor job then we will elect someone else. No term limit would control who can stay or go.
I agree with Shipley when saying that limits get rid of seniority in the legislator and with that senior is experience that we need, especially here in West Virginia.
I think West Virginia should not implement term limits. There are many reasons I believe this one of the main being the lack of opportunity to achieve long-term goals. When there is a limit on how many terms a legislator can hold office, it is very hard for them to actually get that much accomplished. By the time they are accomplishing their goals of change, there time in office is often coming to an end. I also think it should be up to the people when someone should no longer have the chance to be reelected. If the citizens believe the legislator is doing a good job in his or her position they should have the choice to continue to elect them in office. Just how many other students have used Robert C. Byrd as an example of this I will as well. Being born and raised in WV Byrd's good works are something my parents and I have discussed and have understood the benefits of no term limits. The people in this state loved Byrd and his philanthropic efforts and that is why he was reelected. The people supported his actions and what he was doing for the state and they wanted him to remain in power.
ReplyDeleteI do understand where other students such as Anthony Pecoraro are coming from when they say term limits help to make sure bad or corrupt leaders have a limit to their power. Not having term limits could make it easier for someone without the best ideas for the state to leave a longer lasting negative impact.
I have faith in the people and believe if someone was hurting the state and was making decisions that were not beneficial for the state than the people would not continue to reelect this said person.
I think this article listed above covers all the major points I have discussed with the case in Ohio. (http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/07/the_case_against_legislative_t.html)
This is once again a discussion in which both sides have juxtaposing points.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the links from the prompt I found myself swayed towards West Virginia as a non-term-limited state.
One of the arguments in the prompt argues that a state with no term limits put more power in the hands of the governor, the unelected bureaucracy, and lobbyists. This argument undervalues the right of voting given to citizens. The people in office who the public complains about are put there by votes- therefore, by the people. Everyone has personal opinions on things that they want their local state government to accomplish, alter, or remove. Voting for whom one believes will achieve preferred goals and outcomes is what elections are supposed to be about. That, I believe is quite a power many underestimate.
Of course, this brought up the issue of term limits restricting the power of incompetent candidates but also restricting those who are adept and have brought positive outcomes. Upon looking at other people’s responses, I see that many have come up with similar things if not the same conclusions. One response that stood out was by Zac Gillispie. His idea of extending the term but adding term limits seems like a good compromise. That would solve the issue of not wanting to “weed out the good with the bad”. It also instills some diversity. The elected officer would also be given the time to accomplish whatever they brought up during their campaign.
Despite my agreement with Gillispie’s solution, I still believe that there is no need for term limits for people are given the right to vote. If the public took the time to participate, hear out candidates, do their own research and vote for the candidate they think is best, this would eliminate the argument that there is no increase in diversity and no competition without term limits. There would hopefully also be less complaints about too much power to government officers.
After reading through the articles for and against term-limits I can clearly see the strong arguments for both. I understand the point of view the author was making against term limits. They mentioned that elections are an opportunity for voters to change the legislator; term limits could be seen as a limit on a voter’s right to vote; the longer the legislators are in term, the more they know, the more knowledgeable they become overtime therefore making better decisions for the state. There was also an argument made that term-limits can almost undermine the knowledge of voters. The argument for term limits is a strong one as well. It goes on to mention, without term limits, legislators may be tempted to remain in office for life, eventually losing sight of what they are really in office for and what relationships are important. Like Allison Knox stated in her post, “…they allow for the maturation of political leaders in office, without letting them reign for life.” Furthermore, legislators that are elected, make a change and leave a mark are more appreciated than those who are elected and spend years trying to gain power rather than thinking of their constituents’ wants and desires. Sometimes legislators may be elected just become they are recognized by more people. Perhaps they do not make the best decisions, but they are reelected a majority of the time because of recognition. Term limits put a stop to that; it encourages more candidates to run and more voters to vote.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I believe that the positives of term limits out weight the negatives. I understand and agree with both points of view, but I think that term limits create a more level playing field for both voters and candidates. Term limits have negatives that were discussed in the first few sentences but it seems that they are implemented to improve legislation for the all parties: voters, candidates, legislation, etc.
I see both sides of the argument. Although not having term limits may cause corruption and abuse of power, I am leaning against them. The first idea that popped into my head upon reading this prompt was Robert C. Byrd. He was able to do so many wonderful things for the state of West Virginia because the citizens supported his actions and voted for him over and over again. If members of our government are doing a good job in the eyes of voters, there should be no reason to stop them for running for more terms. However, the question of his age was always a hot topic. Some believed that the quality of his work was decreasing over the years as he was being continuously elected. Government officials should always be put to the highest standards, so this aids the argument for setting term limits. If term limits need to be set, I believe that they should be longer than just two or four years. Six to eight years is a reasonable amount of time to give a government official to accomplish all of their goals.
ReplyDeleteThe first blog post here by Paige Madden really made my opinion that there should not be term limits for elected officials. The example that she gave regarding Robert Byrd in West Virginia is a prime example of why term limits should not be imposed. If the people feel as though someone is not representing them fairly or in a way that they see fit then they have every oppurtunity to not elect that person in the next election. On the other side there are some officials that do good for the people in their state, like Robert Byrd who I was previously unaware of that should be able to hold office as long as they get elected for.
ReplyDeleteSome people argue that their should be term limits because they feel that their needs to be new fresh ides brought into office. To this I say that yes in some cases where things are not working their needs to be new ideas and policies brought in. Likewise, when things are going good then why do new people need to be elected in. Its just like the saying if it's not broke then don't fix it.
Overall I feel as though there should be no term limits for the state of West Virginia. I think there are more positives tht come from not having limits opposed to the negative effects that some people see with elected officials being able to serve as long as they want.
Term limits should not be enforced by West Virginia for several reasons. Why do we need to take someone out of office that is doing a great job? We as a voter have a chance to “fire” a legislator who is running for re-election. We do not need a law that enforces term limits when we the people have the power to decide who will represent us in congress. One may argue that many voters do not judge the candidates, but just vote within their party lines or by name recognition. I do not believe that this is true and that we the voters are too lazy to not notice the effectiveness of our legislators.
ReplyDeleteExperienced legislators know the working of West Virginia’s government and are aware of the bills that have been passed in the past. Why take someone out of the legislature who has been effective and is very popular with the people of his or hers district. Re-election is a way to have term limit without forcibly removing a good legislator. By having a legislator run for re-election it allows the voters to remove him or her from office. Having a term limit is very unnecessary when states hold re-elections every 2 years for legislators. Not having a term limit can keep the good experienced legislators in office until they are deemed unfit to stay in office.
West Virginia is doing fine the way it is and should not force term limits onto its voters. The people have the ability to sniff out the bad candidates and put the good ones into office. There is no need to have a law that will remove an effective legislator from office forcibly if he or she is doing an excellent job. West Virginia has several members who have been in office longer than a term limit would allow. They continue to be re-elected for a reason, so why would we tamper with the progress and success they have had?
-Eric Russo
While I agree that term limits are a good idea for most states, I do not feel that West Virginia is necessarily one of them. This in my opinion is due to the nature of the state and how it is needed to be ran. Not to say that W.V is an un-progressive state, but it is certainly less susceptible to radical changes than other states. Which is why if W.V could find a good representative that was sensitive towards the coal mining business and the overall lower income of those throughout the state then they should have no limit. This of course is barring that they are continuously voted in by the people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with term limits on legislatures. With term limits in place it forces legislatures to push legislation through at a much quicker pace. Adding to this if a member is not doing as good of job they're not in office as long. Also, with term limits in place legislation stays fresh with ideas. The institution of Term Limits would force politicians to address the issues at hand and also help to prevent things like government partisanship and gridlock in congress, like we are experiencing now.
ReplyDeleteI believe term limits for West Virginia are completely necessary to preserve the democratic order and allow the state to be subject for change.
ReplyDeleteWithout term limits we see professional congressmen and women get in a comfortable state, securing a seat with popularity and tradition, over skill and success. It is more important that we implement (4) 2 year terms to allow renewal of ideas. Even more so, this limit spreads democracy throughout the state by getting the population more politically aware, thus more willing to make important electoral decisions.
Also being realistic, we can consider someone who would get very comfortable in congress and run the risk of becoming ill during office. We already examine the age and health of presidential candidates and the average age for a president is roughly 52. If we were to allowcongress members to just lay back in office and grow old because of the lack of term limits, people just wouldn't care to vote and the same guy would squeak through. This risks the chance of mental/physical health scares which lead to the inability for bills to be passed and makes for a strange transition of power.
Balanced Politics provide a basic outline of why term limits are a powerful political force, as demonstrated by the results of numerous state referendum, state legislative outcomes, and candidate election results.
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/term_limits.htm
-Zach Abe
After reading all of the articles I would have to agree that I think West Virginia should be a non-term-limited state. I think limited the amount of time that a legislature can serve takes power away from the people. If the person is good at their job and the people want to re-elect them over new candidates then why shouldnt they be able to? I understand the counter-arguement that someone can eventually get too much power but that is always why we have the type of government that we do that runs off a system of checks and balances. Additionally, is someone were to start becoming corrupt then it would simply be up to the people not to vote for them again. Especially with how competitive elections are today I am sure that if someone was doing shady things an opponent would jump at the opportunity to expose them.
ReplyDeleteLimiting the number of years that someone can serve can also discourage people from wanting to run for election at all because they could just find a job that they will be able to have for how ever many years which provides more stability. The only other argument I can see is that having a limit on the number of years one is in office helps add a little pressure on them to get things done because once time is up, there is not anything they can do.
As a native West Virginian, I have lived in Morgantown my entire life. That being said I seen many representatives re-elected at the state and national level. Although some claim that continually re-electing the same Representative squanders the constituents voices, that it puts way to much power in the hands of the Governor, and that it does not increase diversity and competition. Although some of these may be true, as a native to the state I say otherwise. I stand against term limits because I have seen what the positive benefits are from having a representative hold a seat and gain more power and influence over time. The "Road to Nowhere" as the locals like to call it, literally benefited no one except constituents in Fairmont at the time of its conception. Years and millions later the highway was finally completed and it is now the busiest section of interstate in North Central West Virginia. It has made travel and transportation of goods in West Virginia easier and more available. Its projects like these, projects like the new FBI center in Clarksburg that keep constituents loyal to their representatives. It may also be due the style of life that the majority of West Virginians live, the majority of them are middle class and blue collar homes. These kinds of people expect results that they can see or use. If a representative gives their constituents what they want he or she can gain the loyalty of their constituents. This scenario is ever present within the state of West Virginia today. The people are still very conservative within certain regions of the state and its the amount of rural area that is still undeveloped, plus the lack of the population that lives within the state that make the citizens live a lifestyle that some may think is outdated and irrelevant to today's society. But grants that local representatives bring to their constituents like the computer technology grant that has given West Virginia public schools many more computers than most other states in the country; are why many citizens in WV, like myself, continue to re-elect the same representatives. Term limits in a small state like West Virginia would ruin out chances at these grants because of the small population we have a small amount of national representation. Which means we have a small chance at any kind of grants and or grant money. This is the reason I do not believe in term limits for representatives in West Virginia.
ReplyDeleteI believe that West Virginia legislators should have term limits. I think that if a politician can run over and over again then his chances of winning every time is really good because everyone already knows their name after seeing it on every election. I think this could lead to corruption in the legislator if we constantly had the same people there. Like the quote by Mark Twain “politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed and for the same reason” They need to both be changed once the job is done. In this article I read it said that having new legislators come in could undermine the threat of lobbyist being a primary influence on legislation. http://restartcongress.org/revolution/arguments-for-term-limits/. You could say having the same people in there keeps the experience in the legislator but how well are we really doing. It might be a good idea to get new minds in the legislator and change the way we do things.
ReplyDeleteI believe that West Virginia should have term limits. I understand some of my colleagues seem to believe that if someone is popular enough to get re-elected time and time again then maybe they deserve the position, but I agree with my other classmates who say that this could cause corruption and reduce change. West Virginia does seem to be an old fashioned state, and this may deter young people from wanting to come to West Virginia to visit or live. Term limits would allow younger people to run for office which will bring new ideas and candidates who are closer to the people and more in tune with their wants and needs.
ReplyDeleteMy classmates bring up great points, but there are a few other reasons why I believe WV should have term limits. Using California as an example, California's term limits have dramatically reduced campaign expenditures. This drop has occurred at the same time that races have become closer contests and more candidates are running for office. term limits have coincided with large changes in the level of political competition, so large that more incumbents are being defeated, races are closer, more candidates are running and there are fewer single candidate races (J. Lott, OU)
WV would truly benefit from all of this because more competition leads to higher publicity in races, as well as candidates needing to step up their game for even a chance at being elected. Term limits could undoubtedly change West Virginia's political behavior and culture, and seeing how these changes have had positive effects on other states after imposing term limits, I think its about time West Virginia got on board.
Legislators should be given term limits because eventually people stop doing their job well. A lot of voters are uneducated and vote people in without realizing that they may not be making a good decision. Those same people later complain about their legislators doing a bad job or not doing what they want them to do. If term limits are imposed, this eliminates the problem.
ReplyDeleteThe 22nd amendment achieves this by limiting Presidential terms to two, so that when people get tired of a president or if a president stops doing his job well, he can no longer be reelected. This way, people get new leadership regularly instead of being stuck in a cycle they are unhappy with. Ideally, this would stop if people were educated voters, even if there were no term limits. However, voters don’t often know much about candidates so they just choose the name that they recognize even though that legislator may be past his or her prime.
In my opinion, I believe that those who act in state government within the legislative community, have it made. This being said, the reason that they would want to extend their terms would be due to their need for personal gain. This personal gain, would have to include passing state bills that would either help or hurt the community. I believe that in West Virginia, the most important policy outcome is to create more jobs and keep people working. Now that is a general opinion of mine but I believe if you asked any other non-student resident of the state they would agree that keeping their lively hood is the most important thing to them. Now that being said, I think that the state legislature members in this state have to recycle each other in a timely fashion. If one member of the state legislature is keeping their job that they have to be elected to for more than he/she is allowed then only problems can arise. A perfect example would be our own president, Barack Obama was elected for two terms. Now this not being unfair or unlawful, unfair and unlawful events have followed his second term in election. Our federal government has been shut down and our country has taken effect to this. For starters the national parks in America have been shut down. This deeply effects the American popullation, believe it or not our country has some of the most breath taking parks in the world. Now being denied access to them. If we had not re-elected Barack Obama and maybe chose someone with more experience we may have been able to avoid certain events such as the parks being shut down. This is not to say that the federal government shut down is all the presidents fault, he was just in office when the federal government shut down occurred.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are no National Parks in West Virginia, this is just the beginning, if we can't stop our national parks from being taken from us, will our state governments not follow in the same precedents? I think that this trend of taking our natural resources from us as a country will turn into a state legislative act as well. This is a prediction. I don't want to see our state parks go as well, and I believe that if they were to start taking from our states as they have our country as a whole, then some immediate chaos could possibly occur in our country. People don't notice the big scale statutes like they do the smaller scale more state made statutes.
Sources:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131002-national-parks-shutting-down-americas-best-idea/
I do believe that West Virginia should have term limits. I am personally from West Virginia and I see some individuals reactions to politicians. They tend to go for the ones that they are comfortable with or who they have heard more about. I think that if you do not have term limits then this cycle will keep continuing and then we will not get fresh faces in office who are willing to work on different issues and make different changes. As Steve Accardi said above, our founding fathers never envisioned the politician careers like we have today. I also agree with his statement that with having term limits it could be increased to 12 years. I think that way if you have a good candidate and they're willing to make changes, sometimes that can take a good amount of time. If they were able to serve for 12 years then they will have more time to make those changes and they could achieve more. In Thomas Suddes he even states in reason no.2 that 8 years is not long enough if you have a good legislator; so why not up the amount of years they can serve.
ReplyDeleteObviously, the issue of term limits is incredibly controversial, and while both sides have valid arguments, term limits would most likely be a good idea for the West Virginia Legislature. Term Limits will attract different people to the position. Instead of career politicians only, the legislature could potentially be made up of a more diverse crowd. It would be an attractive position for more people because it would not be a lifetime position like it has been made out to be.
ReplyDeleteOf course as the Thomas Suddes article said, some people consider term limits "elitist." But really, term limits do not intend to disparage the voters, they are enacted in order to empower and educate the voters. Term limits would encourage West Virginians to become more involved in state politics. Instead of just voting for the same guy they've always voted for, they would instead have to educate themselves on the new candidates, ensuring that they knew something about their legislators. Also, some say that constant turnover in the state would be bad, but I believe that it would increase productivity due to the fact that seniority would not have a role in proceedings. Seniority often leads to older legislators dominating which basically deems the newly elected legislators ineffective.
I think it’s fundamental to have limited terms especially at the higher levels of politics. Politicians should answer to the people and by facing re-elections every once in a while they are forced to listen to public opinion. In a state like West Virginia where people are more homogenous than in many other states, it is even more important. Some legislatures have been in office for decades giving attention to specific problems while not addressing the entire spectrum of social issues. After reading through some of the messages, I’ve noticed that some people that are supporters of having no term limits are using the argument that if they are doing a god job, why limit the terms. I definitely see the point, but I believe that by letting certain individuals rule for too long, no matter how well they are doing, we are getting a away from fundamental democratic values. I don’t think it’s healthy when people make careers out of holding certain positions. They tend to get to comfortable and get away from their values. By limiting terms we limit possible corruption. All you need is the support of 51 percent and as long as you maintain that number, you have a lot of freedom at your hands. Too much in some cases, just look at Putin.
ReplyDelete/Carl Bojesson
I agree with the notion that legislatures should be allowed in office as long as voters want them in. There's no real basis to not letting them stay in. The only argument that could possibly be made is that it gives the legislature too much power. However, in my mind the voters should be the ones who say whether the legislature has too much power or not.
ReplyDeleteAmerica, in general, doesn't think this way after what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did with four consecutive terms. I think that it would set up a president to be more of a king like figure but it should be up to the American public whether that's a problem or not. If the ruler is good enough, it wouldn't be the worst thing if the president is sort of like a king because obviously the American people think he's good enough.
After doing some research and reading my classmates responses, I have formulated my own opinion about legislative term limits. I think that having limits is a great thing and WV can definitely benefit from it. First of all, it is not fair to have the same person in an office too long. It keeps from getting different perspective on everything. When someone is in office too long it starts to cause narrow minded ideas and laws. Just like in any organizational group when you get a new leader, that brings new ideas that can create change in a good way. This has always proven to be a good tactic. So why can't government be the same way?
ReplyDeleteI most certainly believe Term Limits should be imposed on all of our legislators for many reasons. Term Limits would force our elected officials to act swiftly in moving legislation through congress and they would help avoid gridlock. Constituents of any congressional leaders district want nothing more than to see their legislators work together and quickly move bills, etc. through congress.
ReplyDeleteI feel that term limits are something that should vary on a state to state basis. Smaller states are less prone to corruptions of officials from larger states, therefore term limits should depend on the citizens. Legislators from smaller states are more knowledgeable about the communities they serve because in many instances the legislstors personally know those that they represent. If they were subject to term limits then it could hinder plans to acquire resources necessary for programs when another incumbent takes over office.
ReplyDeleteHowever as many have discussed the issue of corruption in legislation, I would like to highlight that the citizens do have the voring process on their side. If their legislators are not doing their duty to the citizens, or are merely padding their own pockets then there is still an opportunity to remove those officials through the voting process and replace them with someone worthy of the seat to the citizens.
Based on the bit of research I've conducted, I stand firmly on the fence on whether term limits should exist for West Virginia. I believe that term limits can bring effective change in West Virginia. This could close the "revolving door" politician and allows fresh ideas to be implemented and eliminate voters choosing based on name recognition as others have noted. The limit increases electoral competition and enables nontraditional candidates to run which increases legislative diversity. This article explains in detail of the positive impacts of term limits: http://ourgeneration.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/term-limits.pdf.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand studies have indicated that there is increased spending and higher debt as a result of term limits. This article provides excellent insight into this phenomenon http://ad4tq3gq5x.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The+Impact+of+Legislative+Term+Limits+on+State+Debt%3A+Increased+Spending%2C+Flat+Revenue&rft.jtitle=Politics+%26+Policy&rft.au=DAY%2C+JONATHAN&rft.au=BOECKELMAN%2C+KEITH&rft.date=2012-04-01&rft.issn=1555-5623&rft.eissn=1747-1346&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=320&rft.epage=338&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fj.1747-1346.2012.00347.x¶mdict=en-US
After doing the reading and doing some of my own research, I stick with my original opinion that there should be term limits. I think that this could prevent the corruption as well as increasing diversity, which could potentially implement new ideas. There also definitely needs to be a ceiling on how long one can serve, because that will ultimately prevent others from getting into office.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with one of my other classmates that says that smaller states may not be subject to the amount of corruption that the larger states would be in this situation.