From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 04:33:35 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Nov4.230711.5810@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
]In article <!D==Qt-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
]>In article <cornell.720899583@vivaldi>, cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (Cornell Kinderknecht) writes:
]>|> 
]>|> It's interesing that many people were wanting Congressional term
]>|> limitations yet very few people exercised their power of limiting
]>|> incumbent terms with their vote.
]>|> 
]Artifically so.  If the problem is that the incumbent has the overwhelming
]advantage, the solution isn't to prevent people from voting for the
]incumbent, but give challengers the same set of advantages the incumbents
]have -- be it through publicly financed campaigns, PAC reform, vouchers for
]free television use, mandatory debates, franking privileges for
]challengers, restriction of franking for incumbents, spending limits, etc.

Why not just dump the incumbent through a term limit? There are 250,000,000
people in the USA, and 535 members of congress.... I suspect we could find
quite a few people in the remaining 249,999,465 to replace anyone
that gets kicked out by term limits. I simply do not buy the implied
argument against term limits that good people also get kicked out. So
what? There are plenty of good people to replace them.

Sack 'em! 2 terms per person, in any office in the land, and that's it -
no more political jobs! Now that is what I call term limits!

]>I think term limits will help improve our government, and lord knows
]>it needs improving.
]
]I disagree.  Term limits mean
]
](1) More lame ducks with less accountability.

to the special interests and PAC's. How about having some people
in there who are accountable only to their consciences and to history?
I would point out that federal judges are appointed for life, without
ever having to be "accountable." Surely a second term as a lame duck
is not so bad.

]
](2) More inexperienced congresspeople who are overly reliant on the
]    [too huge] Congressional staffs who will be there long after
]    incumbents are kicked out.

So sack the damned staffers while we are at it. In fact, lets move
the seat  of government every four years while we're at it.
]
](3) Less choices for voters.

You mean fewer, not less... Huh? More choices for voters. Without term 
limits, the same bozo appears election after election. With term limits that 
bozo only appears twice, and then we get a new face. Sounds like more 
choice to me!
]
]Term limits are a procrustean solution in an instance where serious
]campaign reform is needed.

No, term limits are PART and PARCEL of reform.
]
]One suggestion I've heard that I've liked is to double the size of
]Congress (to 870 seats) while maintaining the current size of the
]Congressional staff.  

I have read a suggestion that congress should go back to its original
apportionment - one congresscritter per 30,000 people. That way, the
mass media are less important for election - the candidates will be
able to reach the voters at much less cost than now. They will also
be more responsive.

Still, we need term limits. The citizens of 15 states have already voted
in favor of them by true landslide margins (3 to 1 here in AZ).

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
       - - Gun Control Means Hitting What You are Aiming At! - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc