From: niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Term Limits
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:44:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.152518.8344@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>In <1992Nov18.185822.14868@oakhill.sps.mot.com> dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com said:

>> > I disagree... term limits merely ban one player from the playing
>> > field; there is no leveling effect.  [wdstarr]

>> huh?  incumbant vs. non-incumbant ==> non-incumbant vs.
>> non-incumbant!  that is certainly a "leveling effect".

>I'm having trouble parsing the symbols you're using.  If you mean that
>two non-incumbents face each other on a more level playing field than
>an incumbent and a non-incumbent, then I have to point out that the
>proposed solution, term limits, just means that the incumbent would
>face a field so vastly tilted against him as to be, by definition,
>unclimbable.  If you want a level playing field, you should work to
>create a field that's level for _all_ candidates, not just for non-incumbents.

>(Side note on the "level playing field" analogy: it does not, or at
>least should not mean that in order for an election to be fair, every
>candidate must have exactly the same chance of winning.  It only means
>that no candidate should have an unfair advantage.  We must take care
>to remember that _fair_ advantages, such as the fact that Candidate A
>is a lot more popular with the voters than Candidate B, are perfectly
>legitimate)

Exactly.  If the problem is that some candidates are underfinanced
compared to others, then how is term-limits going to help?  You're
*still* going to have rich and poor candidates; they just won't
necessarily correlate directly with incumbents and challengers.

If the problem is that the seniority system allows some congressmen to
have too much power, why not simply abolish the seniority system?

>> > all [term limits] do is take away from the voters the right to
>> > cast a valid vote for the candidate of their choice.  That isn't
>> > democracy.  [wdstarr]

>> being that there is no groundswell of support to repeal the 22nd on
>> grounds of democratic principle, i would say that the democratic
>> principle argument is totally bogus.

>Your logic is faulty.  The presence or absence of popular support for
>a given rules change is irrelevant to how that rules change would
>affect the democratic process.

It's also faulty because the 22nd amendment would affect almost no one;
that's why there's no movement to repeal it.  The term limits amendment
would affect hundreds of people.

>> i can't see what people are so afraid of?  term limits are
>> completely insignificant when compared with the day-to-day impacts
>> of the 18th amendment.

>True.  But that doesn't make term limits a good idea.

Huh?  I thought the 18th amendment was repealed decades ago.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61485 alt.sex:37433 ca.politics:9833