From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 11:15:59 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Nov4.230711.5810@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple) 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.
|> >|> 
|> >I heard the networks make this comment as well.  I think you have to
|> >look at the situation deeper to understand what happened.  Without
|> >term limits, the incumbent has the overwhelming advantage in both
|> >the primaries and the general election.  Oftentimes, opposition to
|> >the incumbent is weak simply because noone wants to run in a race
|> >that they are sure to lose.  As a result, we end up with candidates
|> >that many people don't want, but given the choice, they stick with
|> >the incumbent because he probably is the lesser of evils.  Term
|> >limits opens things up by periodically creating competitive races.
|> 
|> 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.
|> 

I don't agree.  While I would agree that restriction of franking for
incumbents is a good idea, all the other ideas simply increases election
costs paid by taxpayers and actually reduce diversity.

|> Also, the vast majority of districts are manufactured to be safe seats.
|> Requiring district-line drawing to be compact rather than the ludicrous
|> gerrymanders we see today (there are districts where the north end
|> of the district and the south end of the district are contiguous only
|> by the width of a single meandering street or highway) would create
|> more competitive districts where the real election is between parties
|> and not in the primaries.  Part of the problem is the recent Voting
|> Rights Act which requires the creation of minority districts divided
|> on racial lines rather than geographic lines.
|> 

I can agree with you on this.

|> >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.
|> 

I don't think congresspeople are particulary accountable today.
People tend to vote for the devil they know rather than the
devil they don't know.

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

I don't buy this at all.  Congressional staffs are large, but I don't
believe that inexperienced congresspeople will be adversly controlled
by their staffs.

|> 
|> (3) Less choices for voters.
|> 

Less choice by one person.  In fact, it will likely yield more choices
as people fight for open seats.

|> Term limits are a procrustean solution in an instance where serious
|> campaign reform is needed.
|> 

It is a coarse solution but its not one that I think will be detrimental.
The biggest area of reform is one which is the least likely to happen,
reducing government interference in our private and economic lives.
If government officials weren't able to grant favors to consituents
in the form of subsidies, pork barrel projects, etc. you wouldn't see
PACs or masses of lobbyists converging on Capitol Hill.  The best
reform would be a return to a more restricted Constitutional form
of government.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast