From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:23:07 GMT

In article <vb==bZ#@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.230711.5810@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Mmmm... Purple) writes:
>|> 
>|> 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.

How do they reduce diversity?

Voucher for free television use won't cost taxpayers anything -- the
television stations are making use of the airwaves, and require FCC
approval of their licenses.  The FCC can simply require honoring vouchers
as a precondition of owning the license.  Because the FCC sells licenses
at below actual value, it's hardly a cost to taxpayers.

Mandatory debates are costless.

PAC reform is costless.

One could cut current franking privileges in half, give the remaining half
to challenges, and have the same cost that exists today.

A publicly financed campaign would be a good investment to get PAC money
out of politics.

>|> >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.

The argument that congresspeople aren't accountable because they get
re-elected is much like the argument that stoplights don't work because
so few people get ticketed for running red lights.  The high re-election
rate can just as easily mean that congresspeople stay within the limits
of what it is that will keep them in office in terms of accountability
as the argument that politicians aren't at all accountable.  

Realize also that many congresspeople "retire" rather than suffer an
inevitable political defeat.

Realize also that most elections are in single-party districts and a number 
of reps get kicked out in the primaries rather than in the general election.

>|> (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.

I don't think you're aware of the extent of power congressional staffs
currently have.  But this is another issue, and we can agree to disagree.

>|> (3) Less choices for voters.
>
>Less choice by one person.  In fact, it will likely yield more choices
>as people fight for open seats.

I prefer a method that allows a choice every single election than one
that results in incumbents being re-elected five out of six elections,
with the sixth election being for an open seat.  Term limits do nothing
to solve the real problem.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637