Before I get to the assignment, let me cover a few items of business. As you know, this assignment was postponed. It is due on Monday, October 27. Also note that exam #2 takes place on Wednesday, October 29. It will cover all material since exam #1, including blog assignments #3 and #4. The format will be the same as for exam #1. Review sheet will be distributed in class on October 27; it will be posted here as well. The review process will be the same as for exam #1 with the same opportunities to ask questions, etc. in all the different formats. Also note that the journals on the WV elections are due on November 10 (electronically, at berchnorto@msn.com).
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 2:00 pm on Monday, October 27.
Your task is to write about whether you think legislative term limits would be a good idea for West Virginia. Better answers use reasons and evidence, and they also address the comments of your colleagues.
In my own personal opinion, I believe that the state of West Virginia should put limits on the number of terms or years that each candidate is able to have. I strongly believe that creating these guidelines would benefit the voters tremendously in the state as whole.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, making these term limits for candidates would prevent the issue of any politician creating a lifelong career out of the state legislature. Creating a lifelong career out of this would present several problems. They would eventually lose the connection with the district they represent. They would no longer know their crucial needs which would prevent them from efficiently representing them in the state legislature. It is also important that they do not permanently relocate to represent their district in Charleston because this would restrict the voters from being able to chose the best qualified candidate. It would stop many people from running as well because they already think the incumbent would be elected over themselves. Constantly bringing new faces to the surface of districts in a political sense is very important because it keeps the real issues of that district well-known. This would also keep the "real citizens" of West Virginia representing themselves.
Another important reason why I believe the West Virginia government would also benefit from setting term limits because it would help close the gap of seniority. The rookies in the legislature would feel more obligated to get done what they were elected to achieve because they only have so many years to do so. It would prevent any legislative body from being ruled by a few instead of all of the representatives.
However, in order for this term limit chance to have an effective change for West Virginia, voters need to take their voting responsibilities very seriously. First, I believe voters should stay up to date on how their specific representative is voting on all issues. They need to make sure that he or she is voting the way they should in order to improve the district in which they represent. They need to make sure the person they voted for is held accountable for the things he or she promised during their campaign.
Therefore, I believe that it would be in the best interest of West Virginia's state government to limit the number of terms any candidate can run or re run for the legislature. I believe this would help West Virginia's government stay in tune with the majority of its citizens.
I agree with Chelsea that constantly bringing new faces to the surface of districts in a political sense is important so that the district being represented is being represented according to current issues. It is important to get new experiences and fresh ideas from representatives, but I do not believe term limits would work, nor would it be the best option for the state at this point.
DeleteI really enjoyed Chelsea's submission as well as completely agreeing with it. It is very important to have fresh faces and ideas representing the people of West Virginia well. If we do not put limits on terms/years for the candidates we will undoubtedly end up with someone who becomes either lazy or corrupt because of their secure job.
DeleteBreanne, I did not even think of your last point, but it is an awesome one. I agree, when people know they will always have their job, they slack off on completing the tasks at hand. Especially politicians, they will become corrupt and lazy which is in no way, shape or form going to benefit the district they have been repeatedly elected to represent.
DeleteHowever, I do see the opposite point in that statement. By creating term limits, it can practically be taken as the government not trusting the voters in a district to do the proper research and elect the true candidate that will benefit them the most.
I respectfully disagree Chelsea, West Virginia should not have legislative term limits. We already have "limits" in the form of elections.If the people want a representative out of office all they have to do is vote him/her out. You say its harder for a new comer to join politics well its not impossible. Byrd did it back in 1946 were he ran against 12 other people including 3 incumbents. He realized he needed a gimmick to get the attention of the voters, so he used his violin, taking it to speeches and playing it for people. It caused people to remember his name and led him to lead the ticket. It is possible for newcomers to join the political game. Breanne you said something about leaders becoming corrupt because they have job security that's not true. Just because we have an elected official doesn't mean we don't keep an eye on them. Case and point Nixon, he was about to be impeached because of Watergate until he choose to resign. In the case of being a career politician you can argue that Byrd dedicated his life for the state of West Virginia and he always thought about the people. He got a lot federal dollars sent to West Virginia. Your just assuming that all politicians that have been in the job a long time are dirty and lazy which is not true. Creating term limits wont make career politicians go away, instead of running for the same office they will run for a higher office case and point post state senators, governors and even the President of the United States are career politicians and are they corrupt? For your sake and mine I hope not. West Virginia was home to the longest serving member of congress and the state benefited well because of him. With term limits Bryd could not have done all he did for West Virginia.
DeleteChelsea,
DeleteI enjoyed reading your post, you put a lot of great facts to back up your argument, but I have to respectfully disagree. I believe most want to make a career in the legislature is a good thing. They in fact would do the opposite of what you suggested, which is to form a greater bond with their district and or state. I believe having a face people can recognize takes years and if we have those limitations then it would be a revolving door of who is representing the state of West Virginia. I do agree that West Virginians do need to vote more often and if that was the case then having limits on terms would work.
Chelsea, I definitely 100% agree with everything you stated in your first post. It is important to bring new faces into the district because often, by keeping old members (who in fact are most likely there because of seniority) we may loose touch with new problems that need to be touched upon.
DeleteThe decision as to whether term limits should be posed in West Virginia is a difficult one. There are strong arguments on both sides, with very logical arguments presented. I think the best choice, however, is to impose term limits in the state.
ReplyDeleteI feel this is an important decision to make to ensure quality and fairness in the state legislature. Imposing these limits would prevent a large amount of corruption in the government and protect citizens from the harms of allowing government officials to gain too much power and influence. These limits are already imposed to positions across the government, particularly at the federal level. If it's felt to be an important action to take there, I would think it could logically be concluded that the same limits should exist on the state level. These concepts of limiting power and corruption are what the United States government were founded on, and as such they're important to keep in mind moving forward.
Additionally, I thought Chelsea brought up a good point in saying that newcomers to the legislature would likely feel more obligated to get things done if they had only a limited time. That general idea was discussed in the articles posted as well, mentioning that there will be a greater chance of legislatures willing to rock the boat and make a difference when they aren't so worried about getting re-elected.
Mary, I agree that this is a hard decision with valid points on both sides of the argument. However, I also agree that there should be an imposed limit of the number of terms that candidates are allowed to serve. This will benefit West Virginia much more overall.
DeleteThe argument over term limits can be a rather difficult one to fully understand. Personally, I think West Virginia should impose term limits, but those term limits be 8 or 10, maybe 12, years. I am suggesting this because after living in West Virginia for practically my entire life, I feel as if we were to have term limits that were say 2 years, we would run out of people who are actually qualified and know what they are doing in the legislative. Granted I may only think this because I am from a rather country part of WV were politics aren’t considered that big of a deal and people just generally do not care. Most of the people where I am from have no desire to be a part of anything dealing with politics. Yes, there are other parts of WV where there are people who may want to be a part of the legislature, but where I am from, not so much. However, to give those people a chance at being in the legislature, WV should have term limits.
ReplyDeleteWV should also have term limits solely because without them, much like what my fellow classmate Chelsea had said, I feel as if those who are in the legislature would forget about their district and who the represent and would start voting for themselves and not their district. This could result in several issues throughout the state. Also, if we imposed term limits, those who are in the legislature would be more inclined to get in there and get what they need to do done before their time is up because they would know that they were running on a limited time.
Sarah, when thinking about term limits in West Virginia the availability of quality candidates interested in running for Legislature was my main concern as well. I know in larger towns and cities politics are important and there are always strong candidates running for election. However, like you said in the more rural parts of the state I am not sure there would be a plethora of citizens interested in running for office. With that being said, I still think it would be in the best interest if West Virginia had term limits.
DeleteI come from a small town also and we don't have many people here who would even want to run. We have the same people in our local elections for township supervisor, usually only two people run for that. When it comes to the political world, I do think there's a lot of educated people out there who want to run and would be good at it. I'd say the ones who don't get noticed because of lack of means to campaign are the ones who we should change things for. Maybe different parties have to be elected at different years or so forth. Put that on the table and see how the political parties react.
DeleteI agree terms should be extended in the way that nobody seems to know what they are doing and future generations doesn't give much hope. Maybe to put someone in within the last 4 years of a retiring politician my make things better
DeleteThe difference between setting term limits on state legislators in West Virginia would have both positives and negatives that make it hard for to say yes or no to them. As of right now, I don’t see a reason that we should need them. When I hear about the dealings in the state legislature, I never hear about how bad it is or about how nothing gets done (or at least compared to other states). This leads me to think that the limits aren’t important. However, as the others have mentioned, when a politician is running for re-election, they aren’t always willing to step on toes and speak out to get something done. Term limits could help curb that by eliminating the threat of not getting re-elected. I also agree with what Ms. Flanery says about creating career politicians. Although the salary is not quite enough to live on, the threat is there. Career politicians tend to care more about smiling pretty for cameras than they do about getting things done. Citizen politicians are something else created by term limits. It opens up the chance for regular people to get the job. This means it could take them an entire term just to learn how the system works. Without term limits, politicians can become completely assimilated. With the pros and cons laid out, it’s hard for me to see a clear cut winner of the two but I would say that term limits would probably work better, however it would be hard to get representatives to vote yes for them.
ReplyDeleteI believe on principle that every state should impose term limits, regardless of the natural turnover rate of the state, as situations do change. A politician without term limits is a politician who cares more about keeping his job and making as much money from it as he can than the people he is supposed to be representing. A forced turnover also brings in fresh minds on a regular basis, with new ideas and new approaches to current problems that could have been ignored or even created by their predecessors. Some say that the experience and wisdom of a position held as long as possible are necessary for things to go well. How is that position the only way for a politician to gain experience and wisdom? Can knowledge of the issue at hand not come from simply living in the area affected, or from study of and conversation with the people who do? Career politicians are bad for the system and bad for the people.
ReplyDeleteRyan,
DeleteI respectfully disagree, I believe if a politician cares about his or her job and want to maintain his or her job then they would do a good job and bring/give back to those they represent. Fresh mind is a great argument but fresh minds also bring inexperience. We want our politicians to be experience in not only how the system works, but also gaining "friends" in congress. I think bringing in new people can bring in people that are naive to how the government really works.
I understand both sides and why there are limited terms for West Virginia. The limiting of terms offers more opportunity for people to serve as state legislature. With this come negative outlooks on diversity and difference of opinions, but difference of opinions can be a positive; New ideas and perspectives. Even if state legislature had long terms it would eventually get old and less popular and less effective. For example, the Presidents have limited terms even if they are well liked, because there are only so many ideas one person can have. Thus, voting for a new president every four years to freshen up the ideas and outlook on the world.
ReplyDeleteAnderson,
DeleteI have to respectfully disagree with your post. New ideas and perspective is of course a great idea, but in West Virginia where it seems to be the status quo for a long time is that good for this state? Yes there has to be improvement and it could use some new politicians in office. But with the recent people in office it seems that West Virginians are content of where they stand in government. I also think politicians needs to build their reputation in congress in order to have other congressmen voting for our bills.
If I understand you correctly, I disagree that limiting terms would create a negative outlook on the diversity and difference in opinions in West Virginia. I believe that if we have the term limits, it will allow for the new candidates of every election to bring new issues to the surface of West Virginia politics. I believe that this could only be a positive change in WV government.
DeleteAt first, I thought that term limits would be a good idea because it would limit the power of single individuals to take over decisions in government. But at a second glance, I realized that term limits would be a very hard legislature to pass because many representatives in the House and in Senate would not agree to it. They would not agree to it because they have been in office for a while and want to continue serving.
ReplyDeleteIn principal I think that term limits seem like a good idea, because many times powerful people will get into office who are not helping the country or state, but instead they are hurting them. This is one instance I wish their could be term limits, but there are so many factors that go into it that make it seem virtually impossible.
It does not make sense to me why there are presidential term limits but there are not term limits for the House and the Senate. I would think that it might be a good idea to have the person in office reviewed after they have been in office for a long time, but there would be no go way to do a review besides for doing an election. If this were able to happen then that would mean there were term limits, so in that theory that would not really work. If term limits were put into place where you had to take a break, but eventually could run again the government would need to make sure that they passed an amendment that after you run for two terms in the House or Senate that you cannot run in the one that you didn’t run for while you are serving on a break. It seems there would be no way to really change a term limit policy unless they were put into place like presidential term limits.
If there were term limits people on the congressional staff would gain control and virtually do what the people they were working for before would have wanted them to do. Whether these people give them bribes or they choose to do it because they have become friends, this would be a major issue. The staff and committee members work together frequently writing and reading legislation and explaining it to more senior members, so these congressional staff members would be well trained to take over their positions, which would be less hands on and more decision based.
Something else to address in this debate would be is it fair to limit the choices of voters if that is who they want to vote for? It seems unconstitutional and unfair to try and tell voters who they can vote for and who they cannot vote for because their term limit is up. Along with this, it just does not make sense why it is constitutional to limit the president’s term, other than the fact that they are the most powerful government official in the country. This just goes to show the power of passing an amendment and watching it stick throughout history such as when the 22nd amendment was passed in 1951 following Franking Delano Roosevelt’s four-term presidency. If this were to happen for the House or Senate lots of people would feel it was unconstitutional.
According to Delaware Online, recent history shows that voters are usually happy to return to their own representatives. In 2012 congressional elections, 91 percent of the Senate and 90 percent of the House incumbents were re-elected. So why should the United States put term limits on the House and Senate if this is not what the citizens of the country want?
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/columnists/ted-kaufman/2014/05/23/best-argument-term-limits-voters/9502295/
As with almost every debate we’ve had thus far in this class, there are many valid points for and many against this argument. Term limitations have good intentions and are meant to be a solution for a nationwide issue: corruption in office. Those for term limitations argue that candidates running for offices without them are running for power and not to serve. They also argue that without a restriction on the number of terms, the incumbent’s main focus will be re-election, causing them to tiptoe around colleagues that could hurt them in the future and cater to those that could help. Term limited elections would attract those who actually want to do the best for the area their serving and not power-hungry people who just want to keep their position for 20+ years. There is also the argument that incumbents have such a greater advantage when it comes to elections. They have so many resources at their disposable that other candidates just don’t have access to, making these office-holders almost impossible to de-throne.
ReplyDeleteWhile the advantages of term limitations are very appealing, those opposed make some compelling arguments. The most common being that we already have term limitations: they’re called elections. If an incumbent isn’t doing a good job, the people have a chance to get rid of them in the next election. But as I said earlier, they do have many advantages that could make it easy for a corrupt official to get re-elected. Some people have also said that it limits citizens’ right to vote. If an incumbent wants to run again, and the population wants to vote for him, do term-limitations take away our constitutional right to vote? Some say it does. There is also the argument that persons in term-limited offices will be looking for positions for when their term is over and will cater to those who would be able to appoint them, creating the same kind of corruption resulting from those looking for re-election.
I can see both sides of the debate but believe that the pros of term-limitations outweigh the cons. As a young American citizen, the issue of an aging population dominating government scares me. I saw the most recent episode of “Last Night with John Oliver” which included a segment of members of congress saying how long they’ve served for with almost all of them being over 15 years. This isn’t surprising considering congress obviously has no term limits. It is important that new and fresh ideas and concerns be discussed and term-limitations will help that happen, even if it does present some adverse side effects.
I just typed a nice long reply and hit send before realizing I wasn't logged in, so it disappeared. SO! I will try to recreate my argument.
ReplyDeleteI think term limits should be in place for WV. I understand the arguments against them. I see where fellow classmates are coming from and what the article on Ohio is referring to. Points I most agree with for being against term limits is that limiting your ability to vote for an incumbent you prefer is robbing you of your constitutional right. Okay, that makes sense, but can that not then be argued for the president? Also I do agree with the power of the lobbyists being stronger than that of a rookie, as the Ohio article discusses, because the lobbyists will better understand the system purely out of experience. There is also the argument that term limits strengthen the executive branch and weaken the legislative one. This being said, I think in the long run and best interest of our nation as a whole, term limits produce more good than bad. First of all, as many classmates have said, they decrease the chances of corruption. They also level the playing field and increase diversity. Let's take a moment to think back at our in class discussions on third party voting. If there were no term limits, and I wanted to run against someone who has already served two terms and is well liked by the state, why would I even bother running? And if you were a voter, and actually wanted to vote for me but in reality knew I probably wouldn't win, why would you still vote? Most likely, you'd vote for someone else or someone with at least a better chance than me who was most aligned with your views, because you know that the experienced incumbent has the upper leg. I think a system without term limits creates a vicious cycle and self-fulfilling prophecy that will always, ultimately, discourage new opponents. That being said, those new perspectives, new ideas, and new ideologies deserve to be heard and represented, for the ultimate good of the state. What if I had ideas that would tremendously boost our state's economy or that would give us better representation in legislature or improve our school systems? What if I had unprecedented ideas about improving our roadways (God knows we need that) or improving WV's overall image? All of these things could remain undiscovered and un-utilized if I were to never run because I figured I didn't stand a chance. There may be students in our very class who have those ambitions and passionate ideas that could change the face of a state, but what's to encourage them to run if the will be running against the same experienced opponents? It's literally and metaphorically like applying for a job-- someone may have more experience but they also may be cutthroat and cocky for that very reason, or they may just get lazy because they have nothing to prove. Hire a fresh face who is eager to please, determined to work hard, and passionate about their innovative ideas, and you'd be surprised at their potential to positively effect an entire company.
I do see both sides of this argument, I just think that for anything to ever progress, evolution and adaptation are key elements to the process.
As we have discussed in class so far, there are many arguments that are both for and against the term limits. People who oppose term limits argue that the term limits are a bad thing because they can hold back a person who has been doing a great job for the state for a long time from continuing to have success. While on the side that supports it says it gives new people a chance to prove themselves and get a more diverse look at how other people can help improve the state. Both sides can argue back and forth for why term limits is good or bad and I can see where both sides come from.
ReplyDeleteSaying that however, I believe that term limits is the best way to go for the state of West Virginia. Term limits limit someone from staying in office and making it a lifelong career. In the past we have seen people who have one solely off of a popularity contest and go in to serve and do nothing productive with their time in office. Term limits give an equal opportunity to everyone who wants to run, and even the little name people with less money have the same chance as others due to the limit on the terms. I feel with term limits, that people would also try to much harder to get, or maintain a position. Once a politician gets in and does a good job people would want to reelect him/her to office, but if they do a good job for a couple years and gain money from supporters and popularity, like I said earlier it could turn into a popularity contest, limiting his years is a good thing if that is the case.
Although I prefer the term limit, for the sake of argument I will give the better qualities of not having term limits. For instance, if you have a legitimate great politician running your state, then why get rid of him? If he is doing something good and continues to do great things then there is no real reason to vote him or her out. There is no reason to have term limits, if a person is not performing at the level they should, after their term, just vote them out, people have the power to do so in a democracy.
Both sides of the story both have good points and are very valid, but there is no doubt that if I had the opportunity I would make West Virginia have term limits because I feel the benefits of them are better than the downfalls.
The decision to put limits on the number of terms or years that candidates are able to have in the state of West Virginia is a difficult one. While I understand both sides of the argument and believe both are extremely important to our legislation, I have to side with limiting the terms per candidate.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do believe there should be limits, I do not believe it should be every couple of years. Eight to ten years would be ideal in the state of West Virginia because it would allow enough time to get things done but it isn’t so long that they feel comfortable enough to get lazy and/or corrupt. We do not want to have a term so short that we run out of people qualified, as Sarah Hughes had said. Having term limits would ensure that the candidate is not in this simply for the career of easy moneymaking, instead they are here for a set amount of time to make a difference in our state and to represent the people living here. It is also important to have a limit because other wise many less people would be willing to run out of fear of losing to the person that has been in office for x amount of years. I also agree with Chelsea Flanery’s point of the rookies elected to the legislature would get things done more quickly because they have a time limit and that is why they were elected in the first place.
Although there are valid arguments for both sides of this debate, I have to agree with putting limits on the number of terms for each candidate. I agree with a lot of the thing stated in the Cleveland article, however I still think limits are more beneficial than not.
I am in favor of West Virginia setting term limits for legislators. I would also be in favor of legislators being required to remain living in the district that they represent. Like Chelsea stated, if a legislator would move outside of their district to Charleston permanently, how would they ever know what their district needs. They cannot represent a district fully and to their best ability when they have no idea what the district wants or needs. Not to mention that because one generation voted them in, does not mean that a newer generation will want the same things. It's important that regardless of how young, the legislator is able to relate to all generations. If he's never met nor associated with the younger voters because he has moved away, how will he be able to represent them and do as they wish.
ReplyDeleteIf a legislator knows that he cannot be booted because there is no term limit, he may be more likely to slack off. By setting a limit, the legislator is more likely to feel on edge with voters and work diligently to make sure they are doing what they were seated to accomplish. This also prevents procrastination. If a legislator knows that they only have so much time, they are more likely to work quickly to get done what the people want. Rather than putting it off for many legislative sessions. If the voters see progress, they will reelect that candidate.
Corruption is a huge issue for legislation. If the legislators lie to the public, they take a huge risk of not being reelected. If they know that they only have 2 years, and cannot tick the people off, they may avoid corruption and lies. Voters do not want someone who is more concerned with their personal agenda rather than the public agenda. If the legislator gets too wrapped up in their personal desires, term limits will help get rid of them before they cause problems for the rest of the state.
Every so often, we just get those "bad" legislators that need to go. Term limits will help voters be able to get rid of the legislators who aren't in office for the right reasons. Whether it be for fame, power, or the money, voters may have a hard time getting rid of a legislator once they have been in office for too long. By setting limits, the voters don't have to panic about having a crummy legislator for too long.
Like Chelsea stated, more faces are a good thing. More faces, mean more ideas. If legislators see a stronger competition, they are more likely to work harder and be the most innovative or intelligent candidate. Older legislators tend to be set in their ways and stick to the same old guns. Newer legislators keep the competition fresh and exciting. Term limits will again help voters be able to see who would make a better candidate for their district. Just because they have been doing it forever doesn't mean they are still the best. Sometimes seeing options, opens the eyes of the voters to see that there are better things out there.
I disagree with Sarah. Although term limits do require a district to go through many legislators, I do not believe that it will cause us to "run out of qualified candidates." It is concerning that one year a district may have a dud for a legislator but it's part of the process. Sometimes voters need that dud, to realize what they don't want in office. I don't believe that we would ever run out of good legislators, but I still see your point. We may come upon years where we can't find anyone worth while, but it will teach upcoming legislators to work harder and take legislation more seriously so that they get elected and hopefully reelected.
"Somehow, it doesn’t seem right that voters, exercising their collective will through Congress, should restrict who voters in other states are allowed to vote for. Yet, that is exactly what term limits would do."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3105-term-limits-—-still-a-bad-idea
I don't think that term limits would benefit the state of West Virginia. I agree with the article that it limits the rights of voters. We should be able to vote if someone is qualified to be re-elected of not. I agree with my classmate Breanne, that if term limits would be in place that they should be longer. Because if they are short then eventually we would run out of qualified people for office. But like Gregory Hession says in the article I posted :"Until they become better informed, term limits will only result in one bad representative being replaced with another bad representative.
The only fix to having people being reelected and not deserving it would be for people to become more informed and when someone isn't doing a good job, they would just simply vote against him/her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd
My evidence of why I am against is Robert C. Byrd. Byrd served as a U.S. Representative from 1953 until 1959 and as a U.S. Senator from 1959 to 2010. He was the longest-serving U.S. Senator and, at the time of his death, the longest-serving member in the history of the United States Congress." Robert C. Byrd was a prime example of someone who made a career out of serving and did a lot of good things for the State of West Virginia. If term limits were in place he would not have had the opportunity to do those things.
Though I can understand some of the arguments for them, I agree more with the arguments against them. I think putting limits on their terms limits our rights as voters. If someone is dedicated in making our state better, we should not limit their time to do so. Having experienced senators could have a lot of benefits because they have seen and been apart of things that have worked and things that haven't. And because of that, they could use those experiences to move forward. If they aren't doing their job then it's our job to vote them out and elect someone who will be dedicated.
Like Whitney, I agree that West Virginia should be setting term limits for legislatures. As of right now, the term limitation in the state of West Virginia is to be elected every four years by a plurality and is limited to two consecutive terms for the governor. As for the legislature, there are no limits. The current governor in West Virginia is Earl Ray Tomblin. I think that although there are limitations for governors, I think that the governor also needs to be limited to living in the city of Charleston. As for legislators, they should have to live in their districts because they would need to know what their area in West Virginia needs. I believe that as a legislature, you are the face of your district, so by making appearances around your district would be necessary. They would not be able to accurately provide what their district needs if they did not do so. With having no term limitations in the state of West Virginia, the legislature would be able to do whatever he wants basically without the fear of being kicked out. With making a limitation for the legislature, like the governor, I think this would help West Virginia because as of right now these people could be slacking and we would be able to get rid of them if they really aren't doing their jobs.
ReplyDeleteNow, with women, incumbency is one of the barriers to increasing the numbers of women serving in elective office since high proportions of incumbents who seek re-election are re-elected. The Center for American Women and Politics had done a study on women candidates between 1998 to 2000 and found that women have fared better under term limits in senate than in state houses. Term limits have been argued that it would create more winnable open-seat opportunities for women, translating into increased number of women legislatures. With that, some advantages of incumbency is large war chests, name recognition, seniority, franking, and ready access to electronic and print media. With term limits - people argue that we lose experience, maturity, and knowledge of the workings of Congress.
Term limits will help voters get rid of the legislatures that just aren't doing their job. It's nice to see new people come in and be innovative, and have drive to do things. You see that old legislatures just get set in their ways and sometimes do nothing a few years in. You could compare these legislatures with no limits to teachers being tenured. A person can definitely tell the difference between the two, one is ready to teach and make sure you understand the knowledge, and the other could care less if you are passing the class or not. Therefor, I believe that legislatures in West Virginia and everywhere in the country should have limits.
Whether or not West Virginia should set term limits for legislators can definitely turn into a strong debate. Although there are many reasons why this is where I stand on this argument, my main reasoning for this is because I feel that if there is no term limit, any legislator may get into the habit of not doing the best job they can. Suppose a legislator is well aware of the fact that there is no term limit what makes it guaranteed that they will not get lazy because of there being no term limit. With this said, it is clear that a term limit would definitely benefit the state of West Virginia. I know if I was a legislator and my time of being one was limited, I would do everything in my power to do the best job I can knowing that eventually my time will run out. A classmate previously stated that a term limit would prevent procrastination which I definitely agree with considering the legislator would be aware that their time would eventually run out.
ReplyDeleteHowever, with that said I think there should be much consideration in just how long a term limit should be. Having a term limit too long could lead to the legislator slacking off, yet having a term limit too short could essentially lead to the problem of just about anyone obtaining this position regardless of who they are and what their experiences are, strictly because we would be constantly in high demand as we would need to replace the position every few years. Limiting a legislator’s term to 6 to 8 years would in my opinion be just enough time for the legislator to do everything and anything in their power that they believe is best for the people and area they are representing.
Another reason for my argument to have term limits is the idea that term limits give an equal and fair opportunity to any person who desires to run for this position. Regardless if you are the wealthiest or poorest person, you have an equal shot at representing the area you come from being that no person can be reelected therefore neither candidate has the upper hand.
This argument can honestly go either way however, after reading the articles provided I feel that term limits would only benefit the state of West Virginia most importantly because it would provide everyone an equal chance at this opportunity.
The debate of West Virginia's legislators having term limits is a very interesting one. While I believe that there are many reasons that they should, I believe that there are more pros to not having term limits in West Virginia than there are pros of having them. Like everything we've discussed in class, there's a good and bad side to everything. However, neither term limits nor life-long terms are going to create a perfect government for the state of West Virginia.
ReplyDeleteI’d like to discuss the pros of not having term limits. We talked about specialization on certain committees by legislators in class. In order to be specialized and respected on a certain committee, and for your legislation to be passed, one must be experienced with the issue, which could easily be done by not having term limits. While, yes, it could cause laziness in the government body, electors have the option to not elect the candidate again.
Also, seniority plays a role in the new candidates who use the apprenticeship system. If there are no true senior legislators who have more than 12 years of experience, then apprentices may be teaching themselves, and therefore making more mistakes than they would.
While we also talked about citizen legislators, I believe that those in West Virginia could be both citizen and career legislators at the same time. Because the House and Senate sessions are so short in the state, and pay is so low, legislators often have the opportunity to, or out of necessity, must have another job in their hometown/district. This keeps them in touch with the community. No matter how many years someone serves in the legislature, they won’t get paid enough to support a family based on that salary alone. However, if term limits are imposed, they may be nervous and spend more time in Charleston “accomplishing” their goals than remaining in the community for the majority of the calendar year.
Of course legislators will get comfortable in their position. Do we want them not to be comfortable? I believe that for them to speak their minds and actually have an impact on our state, they must be comfortable in the body in which they help govern.
The positives outweigh the negatives when disregarding term limits in the state of West Virginia. I believe that imposing term limits in West Virginia would hurt the experience, effectiveness, and respect of the legislature we have today.
Continued....
DeleteIn the article concerning Cleveland democracy, I also think that it would hurt the democracy we have today in West Virginia, and the US in general. To prohibit voters from electing someone who they truly think is doing a good job just because they've been doing that for too long, is definitely a violation of rights. Also, in the charts in the first link on states that imply term limits, I think it's interesting that so many State Supreme Courts have overturned these restrictions, and I think it shows that they are unconstitutional in most places.
Term limits and far as legislators go, I feel are a must in these politics. This rebranding of our voice as citizens with new legislators is a beautiful idea that allows fresh ideas and a healthy competition in such legislature. There’s a quote, John C. Maxwell Becoming a Person of Influence Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc. 2006,
ReplyDelete“In most cases, those who want power probably shouldn't have it, those who enjoy it probably do so for the wrong reasons, and those who want most to hold on to it don't understand that it's only temporary.” The argument present by legislators who feel strongly against these term limits falls flat in my eyes. Its incumbents, who wish to rid term limits, boast the complexities in the workings of legislature. These same legislators will romp around; give decisive speeches in which they demonstrate their ability to persuade… not legislate. Term limits create a competition in the system that demand the absolute best out of our legislators; breathing a vigor and vitality into our appointed officials. The most important component of these limits is the automatic check on the consolidation of power. With the consolidation of powers what we are like-minded people continuing down a singular road in which we lose a wide range of perspectives. We as citizens need multiple routes and avenues to which steer our nation down the path; stagnation in our legislature is something that cannot be afforded
I totally agree with you Eric. That quote by John C. Maxwell is the best representation of what is actually happening in politics. A competition encourages people to do better and not just for themselves but also for the job they hold. If we have the same old people trying to run the state, then it is going to stay the same and not improve. With these changing times, we need people with different ideas and perspectives who can lead our beautiful state/nation in to a right direction
DeleteAfter a long debate with myself, I have decided that term limits would ultimately be in the best interest for West Virginia politics. My biggest supporting statement for this argument is that it allows for better representation in office. Situations (economic and social) change within districts and states often, term limits would bring fresh perspectives into office and allow for better representations. If you have a Legislator in office who is making a career out of politics, that district is stuck with the same voting strategy and thinking mentality for however long he/she stays in office. Even though the people in the district, with the same lifelong representative, may not realize it at the time, they are hindering themselves. By setting term limits we are consistently changing people in and out of office who have new ideas and have the present interests of the people in mind. Also, it would cut down on the power and influence that one candidate has, which goes along with a bigger amount of citizen views being represented.
ReplyDeleteGoing along with representation, it would cut down on the intimidation factor for first time candidates. Some people decide not to run for office because if they did they would be going up against a long-time popular Legislator. While the new candidate could have a better agenda, they might not bother running because they think assume they will lose.
While it may be naïve of me to say, I do not think there is too much corruption in West Virginia politics; however, with term limits in place it would stop corruption from even being a possibility. For this reason, I think every state should have term limits.
When deciding whether I thought West Virginia should have term limits or not, my main concern is the availability of quality candidates that would be interested in running for office. As I mentioned in a comment on Sarah Hughes post, I know in the bigger towns/cities like Charleston, Clarksburg, Huntington and Morgantown politics are very important and there are always good candidates running for election. However, in the more rural areas (which there are more than we realize in West Virginia) I am not sure there are enough people interested in politics to consistently run for office once a Legislators term is over.
Even though the rural areas might have a difficult time, I still think term limits would be a great idea for West Virginia politics for the reasons I stated above.
I agree with you Jacy, setting limits really would bring fresh perspectives into office more often, and maybe even ending up have more age variance in those who are running. I also agree with your concern on the availability of quality candidates in smaller, more rural areas. I had never thought about it like that!
DeleteI believe legislative term limits should be made for the state of West Virginia. If the same political figures made up the legislature for so many years, there wouldn’t be much change. The people that make up the legislature have their own opinions when elected a seat in the legislature. A lot changes each year so it wouldn’t benefit the state to keep the same people in the legislature for more than eight years. For the seats to be made up of people that have similar opinions as majority of the state, more people will have to vote. In order to find the right people to make up the state legislature, the state’s society needs to vote for which they think will make the most positive changes specific to the state. Although not having term limits allows the legislature to have more experience because they hold the position a lot longer, it doesn’t help us make new changes because the same people with the same views stay in power. Since representatives that have a term limit are able to go directly to Senate or to the House, the limit does not exist in that sense. The term limit is made so that the political figures cannot stay in the same position of the legislature for their entire career. I think this makes a big difference in my opinion because the people that make a beneficial transformation in their spot in the legislature are still given the opportunity to move up in the government. Many people are against term limits for valid reasons but I believe that change must occur in the legislature in order for each state to continue to grow.
ReplyDeleteSamantha, I agree with you; having term limits will help each state grow. Having new representatives brings new ideas which could help the state in the long run.
DeleteI personally believe that having term limits in West Virginia would be very beneficial in todays government for potential candidates although, after reading more into the issue I understand why some people are against having them.
ReplyDeleteAccording to International Debate Education Association, deciding whether to limit the term in office has been a very controversial topic since the early 1990’s. In the article they also discuss both sides of this argument from people who are against and for term limits.
Many people who are against term limits are those in the legislature with years of political experience in creating an effective government with enough power to continuously be reelected by the public. In reality, this is a good point because the legislature are the ones with current power therefore making it difficult to overcome their seniority. Part of me thinks that not having term limits wouldn’t be a terrible thing consider the fact that what if the legislature is doing really well and there are no issues. Why break something that isn’t broken? Ultimately, in this case having term limits would just be a risk that states are willing to take.
On the opposing side of this argument are people who are for term limits. A good point is raised, also by some classmates, on how there is a need for new voices in the legislature. I also agree that a change of voice in office is often necessary within any state to ensure that the legislature doesn’t begin working simply for power rather than to serve. Having term limits would also make sure that each candidate is receiving the same amount of fairness and equality as the rest.
After looking more into this issue I’m torn between both sides of this argument. Part of me believes that having term limits could potentially ruin an already good legislature but another part of me believes that they would be much better because without term limits you don’t want the politician to become too comfortable and begin to work solely for the power of his position.
I believe term limits should be a little longer in W.V. It takes time in a position to fully grasp what’s truly going on. If people are in office for 2 to 4 years and then aren’t allowed to be reelected, the knowledge they already learned can’t be used anymore. You get promotions in business because most normally you’ve worked there for a period of time and know more than others. Why wouldn’t this be the same case, longer term limits smarter people?
ReplyDeleteAlthough, corruption is a major problem in our government, I understand the argument for limited terms. There’s always going to be corruption. Our government usually consist of parties that regulate together. If one can’t rerun for election, one of their allies will be running with the same corrupt mind as there’s. If the public doesn’t like the person rerunning and feels there’s a better candidate vote for them. Just because there’s longer term limits doesn’t mean they have to be reelected continually.
While there are good arguments for both sides in regards to whether or not there should be term limits, I think that the stronger argument can be made for the pros of having terms limits. The few large ideas and points that make the argument strong as discussed by several of my classmates and the articles we read are that it helps prevent corruption, there will be more pressure to get things done and passed because of limit and it brings diversity and fresh ideas.
ReplyDeleteAn article from Our Generation.com (http://ourgeneration.org/term-limits/) discusses how corruption can be avoided from keeping term limits based on the idea that the longer a person is in office the more they focus on what will get them elected. They focus on what would be best for them in their situation and can often become disconnected with the people. Something that also goes along with the idea of corruption is that the longer they are in office that gives them more time to learn how to twist the system and what connections to make and how to keep money and all things that come along with corruption. If a senator is constantly being replaced and relatively new they won't have the time to be able to learn and make the connections needed like that of someone who has been in office for decades.
Another point that goes along with having a limited term is that they will feel the pressure to get important bills passed because they are on limited time. As discussed in some of the articles those in office often do things to get reelected and not always what is best for their state, and with term limits they know they won't be able to get reelected which eliminates the pressure.
And lastly one of the strongest arguments in my eyes is the idea that someone new can bring fresh ideas and who is in touch with the public. I think that sometimes there can be a generation gap between the older people in office. If there are term limits someone new and of our generation can represent us, instead of hearing the same regenerated ideas.
I think that term limits would be what is best for all people, both for represented and public.
I agree with you Emma! I think the concept of corruption in politics is the biggest argument for having term limits. I also like your point about feeling pressured to do all the things you promised while campaigning, I didn't think of that but I'm sure that is a factor.
DeleteI think that there should be term limits because there is always controversy. It would open up new ideas and concepts to the legislature. Not having terms would let the same person and people stay in office, when things should probably change due to lack of their interest in the legislature. In the Debate Education Association mentioned in another student's response, it explains the views on both sides of terms versus no terms. The people who are for terms are the people that want to change it up. The people who are not for terms are most likely in the legislature already or like how everything is running and wouldn't want to change anything about it. I think there should be terms because then everyone is given a fair and equal chance with voicing their opinions and thoughts for the legislature. New voices are going to be heard, so new things will be brought up that the current legislature never thought of. The fairness and equality also plays a part because it is part of the amendments and everyone has these entitled to them.
ReplyDeleteThe arguments for both having term limits and also not having them pose strong points. However, I feel that West Virginia should not have term limits. Our system of government was set up so as to allow people to choose their representatives to represent them how they want to be represented. If a person is representing their constituents well, then they should be allowed to keep their job. Banks don't fire a teller after working there for 5 years for no reason, they let them go for doing a bad job. It is the duty of the people to elected, or not elect, someone that they think will do a poor job in officer, or to fire a person who has lost touch with their district. While some think that if we continually have the same people in office, it will stall the advancement of policy, I feel that having representatives that are educated and knowledgable about the workings of their chambers helps them achieve more for their districts. Addressing the argument that long terms allows people to lose contact with their districts, I think it is the voters job to then vote to not reelect someone if they arent working for what their district wants anymore. While we may have some uneducated voters who pay little attention to politics, it is our right to choose who we want to represent us, and if a person chooses to not exercise that right, or not exercise it effectively, that their choice.
ReplyDeleteJayson, I agree with you 100 percent. In my opinion elections should be used as term limits. If Americans are not happy with what a candidate is doing while they are in office then they should not hesitate to vote against them in the next election. On the other hand why should we set a term limit on a politician who is doing very well and making positive changes while they are in office? Voters need to make sure they are well educated and informed so they know weather to keep a politician in office or to vote them out.
DeleteAs many of my classmates said, this is a very complex debate and its not easy to decide what is best for West Virginia. In my opinion I don't think we should have term limits. I understand that not having term limits may allow some politicians to stay in office for a long time but ever 2 or 4 years citizens have a chance to re-elect a new candidate. If americans were more active in voting, I honestly don't see a need for term limits because citizens get to decide if the politician should stay in office or not. I understand how it may be a good idea to constantly have new faces in the government so every state is represented properly but what if that candidate does a wonderful job, wouldn't we want to keep them in office? Also constantly electing new members into the government may make it very difficult on them to get things done because they have pick up where other politicians left off and that may be very difficult to do in only 2 or 4 years.
ReplyDeleteI found a great article on USA Today in favor of not having term limits http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014/04/02/voices-term-limits/7171113/.
The article talks about Chairman David Camp and why he is deciding to retire. According to this article, Camp is respected by both the democratic and republican parties as a hardworking law maker and he has been working on making the federal tax more fair and easier to understand. He is a great example of a politician who has been very efficient in his time in office but he has decided to retire and term limits are a big reason why he decided to step down. In my opinion, elections can be used as term limits, if the politician is doing a great job in office then they should be able to continue doing so and if they aren't Americans have the ability to vote another candidate in to fill that spot. Congress has to tackle big problems everyday and setting term limits on politicians will make it very hard for Congress to work together and come up with solutions for these important problems.
Justin, I agree with your post. I believe Americans need to be more active in voting and the term limit wouldn't really matter then. We would be electing who we wanted/agreed with, and have the chance to vote for a different candidate in future elections if we liked he/she better.
DeleteJust have many of my classmates have noted, the topic of whether or not West Virginia should set term limits is complex. The above articles gave great pros and cons to the situation. However, I think that WV would benefit from implementing a term limit.
ReplyDeleteOne big problem I feel that many governments without limits face is the re-election of familiar names. People who don't take voting and politics seriously (which there are many out there) go in and keep re-voting for familiar names that they have seen since they started voting, or even before on billboards, commercials etc. I remember myself in my first election, and I was one of those people. I was uneducated and had no stance. However, voting for people with familiar names may or may not be beneficial. If the person with the familiar name is doing well in the eyes of the vast majority of voters who care, then the voters who just vote the familiar name are helping them out. In my opinion, voting for the familiar name is un-beneficial in the long run. If a state doesn't have limits, then people really need to take their voting more seriously.
Limits would prevent the stagnation of familiar names in our governments. If we keep electing the same people over and over again, are we really bringing in new ideas to the government, and are they ever really going to "make a change". No limits also brings about the issue of having people in office who may be legends, but may also be physically and mentally incapable. Like Robert C. Byrd for example, he was a legend, and he did a lot for our state. He did a great job, until he got to the point where he died in office. Maybe shame on me, but I can't help but wonder if he was even completely capable at this time to make appropriate decisions. He was there for so long, that maybe we missed out on some fresh ideas and a different look at things.
An article from http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/why-term-limits-are-important/ (Why Term Limits are Appropriate) proposes a very popular argument to why term limits shouldn't be set. The opposing argument regards the fact that limits deny citizens the right to vote for who they choose. I can see that point, but look at our presidential elections. Presidents can only stay in office for a max. of two, four year terms. Are we being prevented from choosing who we want in office? Why should the presidential side of our government get a fresh look every four or eight years but the other branches of gov (in most states) do not. It really just add up to me.
All of that being said, I really do think that limiting legislative terms in WV would be beneficial, and would benefit most states who don't have term limits. Referencing the same article I did above, http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/why-term-limits-are-important/, a government by the people can only exist when the people have a chance to run. Term limits would allow a fresh look and more opportunity for more American people to possibly be more involved.
I think term limits for all states including West Virginia is a necessity. However, I think the a term limit of 2 years is much too short. My reasoning for having term limits if that it stops a politician of corruption from continuing to be corrupt or getting votes with their money and not their decisions that they make in office. I understand that a defense of not having term limits is that it can keep a great politician who is loved from continuing to do a good job but I think having term limits is almost like picking a lesser of two evils.
ReplyDelete" You tell us that you can't be bought by lobbyists and PACs, and that you can take their contributions, drink their whiskey, and eat their steaks and still be independent. We think you think we just fell off the turnip truck." This quote is from the article provided that explains why some citizens support term limits. I think this sums up the corruption problem in office and why term limits are needed.
Previously I said I don't think term limits should be as short as 2 years, I think 2 years is too short to make a solid change or fulfill all promises a politician makes. I think a term limit of 4 or 6 years would be enough for a good politician to do good work but then put a limit on a corrupt one.
Although there is much evidence against and for term limits in legislatures, I do not support term limits for legislators. I completely agree with Thomas Suddes when he says that not allowing voters to decide when their representatives can or cannot represent them is stripping away democracy from the voters. Some say that not having term limits creates more corruption in legislatures, but I feel as if not having term limits allows legislators to gain experience. Corruption is an obvious problem in all forms of government in the United States (local, state, and national), but term limits will not fix corruption. If a legislator wants to “abuse the government” then he will do so whether he is in the legislature for two years or his whole life. It’s not about term limits; it’s about why that legislator is doing what he is doing. Does he want to be a legislator for self-gain, prestige, fame, power? Or does he want to be a legislator because he feels as if he can help his district or state by voting for what the people he represents want? For me, that’s what being a legislator is all about—representing the people who elect you as well as you possibly can, and doing everything and anything within your power to get them what they deserve and sometimes even what they just want. Term limits don’t allow legislators to reach their full potential. A lack of term limits allows for more experience, which leads to a more effective legislator, which leads to more benefits to the people. Even though there are no term limits, voters WILL vote for a new legislator when elections come if the current legislator isn’t pleasing them. Let voters choose…not the government.
ReplyDeleteAll of my classmates have decided that the issues of term limits, especially in West Virginia, is a complicated and complex issue. While I agree that from a legal and governmental standpoint term limits are a tough issue, from a personal and positivist stand point I am all for term limits for every elected office on the national, state and local levels.
ReplyDeleteIn the article Case Against Legislative Term Limits the writer's second reason explains that even the good guys get voted out too, and he tries to emphasize how unfair it is using North Korea as his example. "If your legislator did a good job -- some did, and do -- you could re-up him or her. 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." I think the writer is ignoring how keeping people in office for life is what's really unfair. In my opinion keeping some in office for more than eight years allows for two things; one, corruption and two inequality in representation. Each group of people, regardless of race/religion/sexuality, should have someone who thinks like them in office at some point. Keeping an elected official in office for life makes that impossible to do. Keeping someone in office for life allows for the good old boys government of the past to reemerge and be a permanent part of our governments institution. Addressing his point of the "saints" being voted out too, there are so many other good guys out there that want to serve their country from the seat of an elected position. There are so many other people who wear white hats (the good guys) that if you keep the current white hats in office, no other white hat will be able to bring their fresh new perspectives and ideas to the government. No other white hat will be able to do any good with their great ideas if only one white hat gets to be in office for life. Corruption happens, even to the white hat wearing good guys, if a white hat stays in office for life it's inevitable that he or she will become corrupt. With term limits you can get a fresh perspectives, less corruption and more equality in representation for all voters.
The link below is a article about Sheriff term limits in WV. In 2012 a measure was put on the sate wide ballot to end term limits for Sheriffs in West Virginia, it was defeated. Analyzing this from a rational and real stand point, West Virginia is known to be a pretty prejudice and racist state. I guarantee you that the current Sheriff is white, and the number of black officers state wide is very low. I also guarantee you that the current Sheriff holds some type of animosity toward anyone who isn't white and a practicing Christian. Imagine if someone like that got to be in charge in every county of the state, this great state would be run by ignorant bigots. There would be more incidents of police brutality and more incidents of murder of young black men. Every non white citizen of this state would be afraid of being pulled over by a racist cop and would be afraid of what would be done to them simply because their skin color was different.I'm glad that measure wasn't based two years ago. http://ballotpedia.org/West_Virginia_County_Sheriff_Term_Limit_Amendment,_Amendment_1_(2012)
Just to summarize, I agree with all of my class mates who are pro term limits. Those who are pro term limits seem to be mostly aware of term limits decreasing corruption and inequality. The government, as an institution, benefits from term limits on all levels.
I think that term limits would be good for West Virginia legislature. It would help lessen the possibility of corruption from the person elected. Also, change is necessary as the world progresses and changes. If the same person is reelected continuously, they might not see the need to change things and just keep things the same because that’s what they know. However, if there are fresh faces in WV legislature then they could bring a new way of doing things which could be better for their time in the legislature.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1994/08/bg994nbsp-term-limitsnbsp-the-only-way
In this source I found, it lists multiple reasons why term limits are good for states to have. It reiterates the fact about new faces can bring new perspectives. It also mentions how legislatures would benefit from higher turnover rates, etc.
Most people who go into politics do so to help people by being the voice of the people. Having new representatives voice their opinions and the opinions of the people could be beneficial because the people might want someone new to do that for them. So, in the long run this could be helpful for the people the legislature representative would be advocating for.
On the issue of term limits, many people have differing opinions. While both sides have their pros and cons, I personally think that term limits could be a good thing. http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/dealing-with-term-limited-legislators.html Here is a link that I found to be very informative, and answered a few questions I had on this topic. On this web page they discuss how term limits may not be effective. It talks about how if we keep changing legislatures they wont have enough time to adapt to new roles. This is something that many of my classmates also touched on. In my personal opinion, keeping one person in the same spot for as long as they want is not a good way to create change, which is something we desperately need at this day in age. If the same people with the same view points stay in the same position, then everything will always stay the same. In order to make things the best they could be, I feel like there should be term limits. To address the issue of legislatures not having enough time to get used to things, they could just make the limit after a longer period of time. In the link I provided, it talks about how some states have boot camps or training courses that future legislatures go through. I think this is a good idea for people running, so then they can get caught up on issues and it cuts the adjustment time. Overall, I feel that a term limit is a good idea, and could be very beneficial in getting things to the best they could be.
ReplyDeleteI think term limits can have several pros, but also several cons, making this a hard decision to make. Having term limits, like said before, could be beneficial because the same person wouldn't have the position for a long time. There would be different faces bringing along change that could end up being very beneficial. It would also ensure that the person holding the position of the job does not become lazy and slack on his decision making due to his "job security".
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think it should be up to the voters to chose who they want representing them. If they are comfortable with the same person until they die, then so be it. I think that the voters will know and realize when it is time for their representative to go. They will see the negative affects if the representative becomes lazy and makes poor decisions. So maybe the voters can decide whether the representative has term limits or not, but I personally don't know which I would choose.
I personally believe that term limits are something West Virginia should implement.
ReplyDeleteI believe that having limits allows for new people to get into legislature and bring their fresh ideas to the table.
I do think there are both pros and cons to having and not having term limits though.
When discussing having term limits, there some obvious pros. Having them allows for new people with fresh ideas to step and see what they can get accomplished. It also allows for less redundancy among the legislators because it is unlikely any two people would see eye to eye on all issues. Some of the cons include the fact that the legislator may not be able to support all the policy they want before their term ran out.
When not having term limits, one can argue that it allows for the legislator to just that: get their policy through. Although Robert C. Byrd was a senator, he was never a victim of term limits either. This allowed him to get as much done as he could for West Virginia in his political career. However, this can also be a problem. If someone like Byrd was not getting the job done and he consistently ran unopposed, that district would always have to deal with him as their representative.
http://fee.org/the_freeman/detail/why-term-limits
This article discusses both sides of the issue and I read it in relation to this blog post. After reading the article, one point I find interesting is the sentence that states that term limits is what the people want so they can have change. Personally, I do not know how accurate this is, but if it is true, term limits should be considered. I believe that term limits would not be implemented to hinder the chances of a legislator being re-elected, but only to enhance the chances of a future legislator having their chance to impact their state and/or district.
If I was arguing, I would support term-limits. I believe that changing the landscape can both be good and bad, but you would never know until you tried. Having new ideas in the legislature would serve as a good thing because it would allow for many different people to hold seats and I also believe it would increase voter participation. It may allow for any Joe to run for the job, but the responsibility of the people is to find the best candidate and get them into office. Term limits would serve great purpose in the legislature and I would support having them in West Virginia.
In my own opinion, I believe all states should have term limits. By this, I mean legislators must have a set number of times they can run for office before they have to step aside and make room for new names and opinions. More specifically, I agree with current rules of re-election; a legislator may serve consecutive terms however once their two terms are up, they must take a certain number of years away from their house before running to run again.
ReplyDeleteI believe there should be term limits because it prevents legislators from running over and over, thus preventing corruption and keeps a sense of freshness to the houses so people aren’t hearing the same rambling of one legislator term after term. Term limits prevent politicians from taking advantage of our democratic system. Yes, the people have the right to decide who they want to represent them and run the nation, and though term limits seem to prevent us from exerting our right to vote for who we want, it protects us from any politician seeking to retain their power for the sake of power. Ryan Wilkinson said it perfectly in his comment. He said “a politician without term limits is a politician who cares more about keeping his job”. And I agree with him, as well as many of my classmates who seem to overwhelmingly agree that term limits are a good thing to have. The point of being a leader is not to worry about who may proceed you or how long you’ll hold office. It is about performing to the best of your abilities to and to serve the people you represent.
Reading through, I have noticed nobody has yet to say they are against term limits. The Cleveland article provided that supports term limits brings up some interesting points, however I would like to do my best to argue one of them. One reason stated in the Cleveland article is that democracy will reign true and the people will know when to elect a person out of office. Now I have lived in three states in the last couple of years (PA, TN, WV) and I will honestly say that I have no clue who runs any of those states. Though I cannot speak for the nation as a whole, but if you asked someone who their representative was, they may not be able to tell you. That’s because a fair number of Americans don’t pay attention to the legislature until Election Day comes around. How do we know who to vote for if we don’t follow our government close enough to know who represents us?
Finally, I will end with a news article I found form TheHill.com. A bill has been filed by Rep. Mick Mulvaney to have a nation-wide limit on the number of years one can serve as a lawmaker in America. The bill stipulates you can serve 12 years in both Congress and the Senate separately, adding up to a total of 24 years as a United States legislator. The bill is very recent, and was created in reaction to the government shutdown in last October. Congress’s approval rating is at an all-time low and Mulvaney thinks this bill will help clear house and make room for new names and ideas. Oppositions say the current limits are good enough and that the American people have the only right to say how long one can serve, but I would say that too if I had held my chair in Congress for over 20 years. The opposition is scared of what would happen to them if they were to suddenly leave congress. Nobody wants to lose their jobs, but our nation needs a change, and right now Congress and the Senate are refusing to change. The first step in solving a problem is recognizing there is a problem, our legislators have learned the loopholes of our system and are dodging every obstacle they can to keep their jobs.
I believe that term limits should be placed on West Virginia legislators. A limit of 8 years would be acceptable. This gives the legislator in office the chance to do justice to the state and the district in which he/she represents. This allows the legislator to build the connection needed in order to represent a certain issue or help recognize the specific district. This can become both a pro and con. Politicians seem to make cliques and once a new legislator takes the seat, then the same connection might not apply to the situation.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason term limits is good is because it will allow fresh new minds to enter into politics. Now, according to Gov. Paul LePage of Maine says that “Young people with firm agendas… [are] hurting us in the long haul.” So this could be considered a con of the situation. Young politicians may be forced on personal ideations rather than what is best for the district or states as a whole. But, as a whole the nation is changing every day, the youth of tomorrow are needed in order to keep us afloat, so in order to do that, we need more fresh new minds to hold government offices. This is why I think West Virginia should implement term limits.
I’m sure we have legislators who have served for more than 10 years that need to be relieved, especially if their district hasn’t prospered from the term. It will give someone from that district to focus more on the district, if they hold a new seat do deal with current issues.
Quote from Gov. LePage from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/03/21/are-term-limits-for-state-lawmakers-a-good-idea/
The United States is arguably a representative democracy and the key word being democracy meaning a government ran by the people. Therefore, term limits hinder the democratic functions in a democracy. If the people wish to reelect a person over and over whether they are qualified or not then they have the democratic right to do so. The argument above about incumbents losing contact with their district overtime is not true because if they lose contact with the people then they cannot get reelected. In addition, experience is pivotal to gain respect amongst fellow legislators to get bills beneficial to their district passed. If a rookie takes office after so many years it will take him awhile to get adjusted and earn the respect he needs to propose legislation; therefore, hurting his district. Experienced incumbents do not have this problem like rookies do, for it is much easier to allocate funds to their district with years of experience than if they were a rookie. Furthermore, term limits give more power to lobbyists, who are not elected, than legislators. Because legislators come and go, lobbyists are able to learn the in-and-outs of the state legislature better than the legislators and therefore they have more power. To conclude, voting is the single greatest impact that the people have on the government and the government may not restrict that through term limits. If the people choose to elect a convicted criminal term after term then they have the right to. The government should not decide when someone should leave office, rather let the people be the term limit.
ReplyDeleteI think that there comes a time in a persons career where they have done their given job to the best of their ability and it is their time to move on to something else. Being a state legislature is an important job, they over see the state and all the citizens that reside in that state. Making the best decisions that they think would be beneficial to be a successful part of America. Do i believe that there should be a limited amount of time that each legislature should serve their time? Yes I do. The only way this country can grow and improve is through new individuals coming in and giving new perspectives.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the popularity of the individual in legislature at that time, no one can serve forever. There comes a time when new adventures and career paths become present and being a state legislature was a good stepping stone or career move for any politically involved person to be. Making their mark on their residing state and being involved in our government can be a rewarding but stressful task.
In my opinion, the debate over the need or lack thereof for term limits in West Virginia is a difficult subject. After a reading these articles, as well as listening in class I came to the conclusion that the existence of term limits in WV is extremely important. I then came to realize, however that the amount of time each term is limited to could be changed without too many issues. However, although I do agree that these time frames could be altered, the degree to which I think this could be done without problems is not very high. If it was decided that the term limits would be slightly longer, I feel that there would be more room for creativity and thought that wasn’t on such a “I want to prove something” basis. After a time period that is over two years, I feel that people would begin to forget about egotistical values, and start thinking more beneficially to the state and legislature as they have slightly more time to “mature” in office. That said, I also feel that if the term limit was only one year, these candidates might work harder to do exactly what it is they campaigned for as efficiently as possible. Overall, I feel that term limits set a good standard because they support cultural and timely change even when it may not be noticeably wanted by the youthful and new age majority. Although this might sound wrong, in certain parts of West Virginia there are still many people who do not support cultural change running in the houses due to family members running, and older “cultured” citizens taking up the majority of some of the smaller counties. If term limits where not in place, especially in WV, “old school” politicians would run the state. If we did not have term limits, there would be a vital part of the United States Voting System missing completely, and we would start to look more similar to states that we differ from greatly, for many great reasons in politics.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that proposing a a term limit in the state of West Virginia would be a good thing for the most part, though I do believe that if West Virginia were to have a term limit that other states should have a term limit as well. I believe that the restriction of having a term limit should be a national rule, and not just exclusive to individual states. I also believe that if a term limit rule was placed in the state of west virginia that this should not limit the amount of time spent in all branches of government, but only limit the time an individual serves in a specific branch of government. For example: if someone were to serve all the possible year allowed for them to serve in the senate, then they could still be elected into the house of representatives. Also I believe a different term limit should be set for each different region of the government an individual is serving, like 6 years (three 2 year terms) for the house of representatives and 8 years (two 4 year terms) for the senate as an example. I also believe that creating a term limit would create diversity within the government and would give citizens a better chance of being able to run and have a better chance of getting elected which broadens the diversity of the members active in our government, permuting the upbringing of new ideas and more ideas that will help improve our government and the lives of our citizens.
ReplyDeletein my opinion, West Virginia should not put term limits on legislatures. I believe this for a few reasons. First, i think that most legislatures want to be in the house or senate their whole lives and in some cases for states with term limits there may be a person who doesnt know what else they wanna do for work and may be out of a job, this insures that even though it isnt guaranteed, it is possible to keep that job for however long you deserve it. Second, if there is term limits which are usually 8 years, maybe a senator or house representative cannot get done what they wanted to get done in that limited time, therefore if they are still liked by the people and get voted back in they can keep working on what they were working on instead of someone new taking their place who has different goals or views and ruining that persons whole term. Next, I believe that having term limits brings in more and more less experienced politicians. Obviously the longer a politician stays in the house or senate, the more experience he or she gains and the better job he can do and as everyone knows experience comes with time. Last, many people argue that allowing term limits bring in more ideas from different politicians but in my opinion that can get in the way of what is already trying to be done, or the ideas will clash and cause nothing to be done. therefore i believe that there should not be term limits.
ReplyDeleteI think that there should be term limits in the state of West Virginia, as well as all other states. I think imposing term limits would create a better sense of diversity within our system. I researched the impact on minorities and women. It was found that "female candidates seem to find it easier to gain entry to term-limited legislatures than to non-term-limited legislatures and are more likely to gain leadership positions in high-turnover legislatures. The same is true for minority candidates."(http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/term-limits-lessons-campaign-reform). I think creating more diversity within the legislative system would enhance representation for groups are underrepresented greatly within our system. As far as voting, it is difficult for new candidates to overcome an incumbent because they have advantages. The article for term limits points out some of them. They are more likely to be able to raise more funds for campaigning and already have notoriety within just their name. New candidates lack that impact. I also think term limits are a good idea because after say 8-10 years I think some politicians become stuck in their ways, what they care about, and how they represent. Our states change constantly and will have different needs and that will require different strategies. Finally, I think term limits help to keep political machine type power houses from developing. Alliances can be broken up for the sake of progress rather than being gridlocked because no one wants to work at anything new.
ReplyDeleteI have always, more or less, accepted term limits. I never really questioned whether a politician needed less or more time in their office. Term limits simply meant to me that the politician or legislator had time to do what they saw fit in office, but only in the time limit until re-election came (even if they do intend to run for re-election).
ReplyDeleteOf course politicians running in the state legislature can keep running forever if they like. As long as they keep receiving top voter numbers they can keep going. I have a problem with this aspect. If someone running in the legislature can just keep on running and running and the voters could just keep voting for the same person. This makes it very hard for other possible politicians to get noticed and get elected if the voters keep voting for the same person every two years.
I won't chalk up my argument by saying the voters are "stupid," but instead they are misinformed and possibly being led along. Voters have to really review their candidates and decide if they are right for the job. The fact that a candidate can keep on running in the West Virginia legislature seems more like an unfortunate oversight instead of a general rule of West Virginia.
In my personal opinion, I do not believe the state of West Virginia should have limits on the number of terms or years that a candidate is able to have. I understand the reasoning behind why someone should suggest West Virginia legislature have limitations on terms such as corruptions, making a career out of the state legislature, limit power and more. But what most do not realize is that once a legislature is done with his or her term they may be able to run for West Virginia House of Representative or the Senate. My argument is simple; we already have “term limits,” because we can vote out any legislature at the end of their term. If we as the public are as concerned with lawmakers then why don’t we keep up to date with it and vote out those who are not fulfilling their duties? For example, in Knawaha county Doug Reynolds and Dale Stephens have assumed office in the 17th district for about a year now, but prior to that both have served in the 16th district for an average of seven years. So what does that tell us? This tells us even though they have “limitations,” they still can move from district to district anyways. Having term limits also puts limits on the experience of the people that we have in office. They have to have time to build a reputation and relationships with other lawmakers in congress to have a better chance for their bills to be pass. My last argument might seem offensive to some, but we should not have term limits because of the fact that voters do not vote. Of course there are the few exceptions that do follow up on bills and laws, but unfortunately those people are the minority. The general public does not vote so why should we have term limits? If the legislatures are doing a great job, why penalize them for it? They understand their district and or state and if they’re not it goes back to my first statement, you can still vote them out anyways. I believe that putting limitations because of corruption is an excuse for an argument. If corruption were such apparent then that legislature would have been out of office a long time ago.
ReplyDeleteThough both sides make good arguments, I think it would be in the best interest for West Virginia’s Congress to have term limits. I believe it would help ensure fairness, help eliminate corruption and encourage diversity in the state.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Founding Fathers created The Constitution, they never wanted politics to be a permeant career for someone. It was intended to be for everyday United States citizens, who were aware of the issues the community/ state were facing, and would serve on the Congress for a allotted amount of time. Once their time was up, they return to the community as an average citizen and a new person takes their place. But now, Congress is staying in office for years and their are no laws against it. I think we should respect what the Founding Fathers intended for the term limits of congressmen and enforce term limits.
Term limits would help eliminate the corruption that we see over and over again by our politicians. According to Our Generation Organization, case studies show that the longer an individual stays in office, the more likely they are to stop serving the public and begin serving their own interest. Keeping congressman’s terms short will keep the public interested, as well as making it more challenging for corruption to occur without going unnoticed.
Another great reason for West Virginia to have term limits, are to encourage regular, everyday citizens to run for office, which creates more of a diversity. Tanya Wasyluk make a great point about this, in the system we have now, an average person running as a third party member, will have no chance running against someone who has already served two years.
I agree with my classmates that term limits are a very debatable issue. However, I believe that West Virginia should not have term limits. If people want to keep running for office I don't see a problem with that because we have the power to elect/re-elect them. West Virginia does have a low voter turnout which I think comes from laziness and people just not caring about political issues. So the people that do vote probably care and know at least a little about what's going on. I think many problems could be solved regardless of if someone is in office for say 8+ years or if there is a set limit. If someone new runs and people agree with them more and want to see change in what that candidate is doing then we still have the power to elect someone new. Also, term limits set a time in which politicians have to get things done in and certain issues may have to take longer than what the term limit would be. I researched that term limits benefit women because of a few factors, but I don't think this really impacts West Virginia. As I mentioned earlier we have a low voter turnout so most people that vote at least know a little about what's going on and if the women candidate was a frontrunner and people liked her I believe they would still vote for her without term limits.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that not all voters are intelligent enough to make the right decision, I do not think that taking away a choice from the voters is the best way to combat that. Instead there should be more done to educate voters about other candidates running for office. I have long been a proponent for people being required to pass current events test before voting. Perhaps instead of limiting the candidates, it would be better to limit the voters. It's not fair that a legislature has to suffer on behalf of his constituents' ignorance. Obviously this severely hinders democracy but do we really want people who are uninformed to be in charge of the future of our county, state, and country? I think the only way this could work would be to require the test before voting then regardless of whether they pass or fail, they still fill out a ballot however the only ballots that count are those casted by voters who passed the current events test. The voter will not be informed of their results so that they can't fight against it if the end up failing and also to prevent any rebellion against the government for taking away their right to vote. I understand how terrible this sounds but again, do we really want the voices of the ignorant to be heard?
ReplyDeleteOn the issue of corruption, there should be a better way to regulate that rather than just not allowing people to run because they've been in office for too long. Not all senior legislators are corrupt. In fact, if a legislator is in their last term, they are probably more likely to be corrupt because they don't have to worry about not being re-elected because of it. There will always be corruption, regardless of term limits. Having a term limit doesn't prevent enough corruption for it to be worth the harm it does to the democratic process and legislators that want to continue on with their career in the legislature.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
DeleteMischa R. PrestonOctober 26, 2014 at 5:36 PM
I must say that I strongly disagree with your idea to require a current events test, even though I know that is not the issue we are debating for this assignment. While I understand that it would ensure the voter is aware of important issues, it also limits who can and cannot vote. One of the key things about our government is that everybody has the right to vote. It doesn't matter what your skin color is, how much money you make, what gender you identify as, what your sexual orientation is, or how intelligent/informed you are. The right to vote is a right that we all share, and one that should not be limited because of any test result.
Just like many of the posts above have mentioned, this is an issue with strong arguments on both sides. At first, I didn't think I could decide which side I agreed with the most. But the more I thought about it, the more sure I was that we should not impose term limits. That's not to say that the arguments FOR term limits are incorrect, but that the arguments AGAINST are better. Yes, having term limits would mean more change more often, which I definitely support. Yes, term limits would discourage or eradicate career politicians. But both of those are capable of being fixed through regular elections, just like they are now. If change isn't happening and the people want more, vote a new face into office. If the people feel as if their representative is losing his or her connection to the people, vote a new face into office.
ReplyDeleteJena Gardner points out that the longer someone is in office, the more likely they are to be corrupt. I believe this is a fault of the people. Voting citizens should pay more attention to these things and be aware of when the person representing them becomes corrupt or less able to serve the people. When signs of this start to surface, vote in a new face.
It is the responsibility of the people to ensure the person elected is in fact the person we want to represent us. If we fail to do that, then the issue is with us and not with the politician.
I think that term limitations are meant to have good intentions in helping out everything all together. Term limitations are supposed to put some type of restriction on the number of terms that are served, and the incumbents solely focus on re-election.
ReplyDeleteI believe that legislative term limits would be a good idea for West Virginia because it would allow people who actually serve in their best interest and not just because they want a good name for themselves and just like the power of being in charge or the popularity that comes with it. Although that doesn’t completely stop the people who seem to just want it for the “power,” but I really feel like it would help with getting people who actually care about serving.
A lot of people argue that it limits the rights of voters and that people should be able to vote if someone is qualified for re-election and I do agree with that much but I also feel like there are more positive things than negative such as decreasing corruption. After reading the links that were given, and reading some articles that I found online, I would have to say that overall that having legislative term limits will help get rid of anyone that was doing their job, and it allows other people to come in that have a positive attitude and the drive to do things allowing them to accomplish more goals. I can see both sides of the argument that my classmates have made, but overall I felt this would be better for everyone in the future.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWith few exceptions, I have always found that term limits are an absolute necessity, not only for the sake of individual states but also for this nation as a whole. It is my belief that this country should have abolished the clause for reelection long ago.
ReplyDeleteAside from the aforementioned exceptions, I use the executive branch as the perfect example of this. Take President George Bush, for one. After the end of his first term, I think it’s fair to conclude that the American people as a whole—both republican and democrat—had had enough. We blamed him for nearly everything negative that had transpired during his first term. Then, he ran for reelection and won. By the end of his second term, America’s dissatisfaction had grown exponentially.
Discontent aside though, multiple terms give candidates entirely too much leeway in my opinion. In other words, once these contenders win reelection, they lose the incentive to actively participate in legislature. Take President Obama for example. His first term was filled with countless promises; promises that remain unfulfilled to this day.
While I realize this notion may seem unrealistic in the structure of today’s government, I do think it is absolutely necessary to limit the amount of times candidates should run for reelection, in West Virginian legislature as well as in every other state. Not only to incentivize, but also to diversify and expand the variety of candidates in office.
Proponents of term limits also argue that they serve as a buffer that prevents too much power from being consolidated in the hands of one candidate. In turn, these limits offer an automatic check and balance of power. (http://www.debate.org/term-limits/)
I strongly believe that these limitations would positively affect our states. Candidates would remain in-tune with the demands of the districts they represent, and in turn, voters would feel more connected to them. As Chelsea Flanery had previously mentioned, in order for this term limit to effectively take place, voters must take their responsibilities more seriously. Such an imposition, I feel would incentivize this.
I believe legislative term limits would be a good idea for West Virginia. If individuals can continue to run for office and win time and time again there will be an issue with power. Especially at a state level, too much power to one group or individual can be a recipe for disaster. There will always be corruption in politics, however, I think not setting term limits can only increase the likelihood of corruption and over powering groups. Here is a link to a little pros/cons chart of term limits I found. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/term_limits.htm. It is a little crude, but I think it get breaks down the different sides very straightforward and simple. The side that is for term limits talks about how term limits decrease corruption, political machines, and lobbyists/contributors from becoming an even bigger part of politics. The other side argues that politicians who have served in office for a long time know the ropes better than a newbie and that term limits basically kick good politicians out of office for no reason.
ReplyDeleteI found the article against legislative term limits to be quite unpersuasive. Referring to elections as term limits is a good try on the author’s part, but not correct. We all know that the incumbents more often than not win elections, especially state and local elections. I tend to disagree with the common argument against term limits that the politicians that have been in office for a long time know how things work better than new people. Politicians are smart people and they are perfectly capable of learning and figuring out how things are done. People that are against term limits are simply afraid of change and are working to benefit their own agendas as most of us do. People want to keep the politicians in office who are doing a good job and I get that, however, there are plenty more candidates who have the capabilities of doing just as good of a job.
My favorite point that is made in the article for term limits is that term limits give the people more control. I think this point is especially important for state and local government elections because those can be so easily corrupted. Setting tem limits and allowing the people to vote for what they truly want as opposed to what they are used to and comfortable with just gives more power to the people and less too the politicians.
-Jessica Johnson
In my own opinion, I believe the state of West Virginia should put limits on their terms for roles in government. I truly believe that this will improve a multitude of things for the state.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, making these terms have year limit ensures that there will never be complacent attitudes. It’s very easy to become comfortable with a position the longer you’ve had it. Typically production tends to decrease with comfort and therefore shorter terms with will increase productivity. As we discussed in class incumbents have a much higher chance of being reelected than their challengers do. Because of this fact those in office too might feel less compelled to be productive and simply “get by” knowing that their position is far more secure than their challenger.
Another important reason is the fact that their becomes a very “old boys” feel to the government in which I believe the founding fathers were working to eliminate. Those who have held their positions for extremely long periods of time have clout associated with their names. When it comes time for elections (ex a position is totally open) they can use their name to back the candidate of choice. As we know voters tends to stick to the names they know and therefore a member of WV government could virtually hand pick their government colleagues.
I believe what Chelsea F. said is true about politicians in WV would hold the mentality that legislature is now their career. Most importantly the notion of losing touch with their district is very important. WV needs legislature that will speak for them – if a politician would relocate or buy a house elsewhere (i.e. Charleston) they would in no way shape or form be able to truly know the issues of the area in which they are representing.
The addition of terms would cause some issues for voters however and force them to become more active in the election process. They would needs to do more research on the candidates find out their political resume. There would also be more responsibilities for those running in the needs to truly portray and represent themselves as the man most qualified.
I believe WV state government adding term limits for candidates would help the majority of citizens in the state.
I believe that there should be term limits on legislators for not just WV but all states. First off there is no reason that there shouldn't be limits when we place a limit on our own president. Mainly I think there should be limit because it encourages people who really care about the position and job to run for office. Knowing that the job has a limit many people who are looking for a lifetime position or to be in power for a long time will shy away from a job they know they won't have forever. I think this will reduce corruption since it will be hard to make promises and alliances since they will not be in office for that long.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of the other students reasonings as well, there will be newer ideas and maybe more confidence in what they can get done in office without having years of discouragement and failure on their shoulders. Many other people also mentioned that it prevents procrastination which I would agree with as well, you need to get things done and have a time limit so you have a clear agenda and there's no real reason to not follow it.
One reason on the other hand that would be a negative of term limits is the fact that once people are in there final term they may get lazy and not get things done because they are not trying to get re elected. I think this could cause some problems but having new people coming in would then be a good thing.
Overall I think the positives of term limits far outweigh the negatives, new ideas, new people, less corruption and real agendas hopefully would speed up legislation and encourage only people who truly care about government to run.
Wither limits should be created for legislation terms in West Virginia is hard to say. After reading information on both sides I feel as if creating term limitations is the better option. I feel this way because I have always been a believer in the idea that people get stuck in their ways. I feel that if the same people have a say they will always have the same say. As our nation grown and changes our government has to grow and change with it and if the same people with the same opinions are helping dictate what happens within the state. I do believe that they should be rather lengthy terms, like 8 or 12 years long but there does need to be some sort of change, I feel, because the legislation is always in need of a new mind with fresh ideas.
ReplyDeleteI agree there should be term limits. Term limits encourage young, smart, determined minds to make a difference for their state. Newly elected candidates have the opportunity to critique existing policies while changing ones that have proven ineffective. Having fresh ideas more frequently in the legislature better demonstrates the current beliefs of the masses. I think the debate on lengths of the terms is very interesting. The problem with long terms is that if there is an ineffective legislator, we are stuck with he/she for several years to come. A shorter term length and increased term limits allows effective legislators to prove themselves and have the opportunity to serve for an extended period of time.
DeleteI believe term limits are not only best for West Virginia but also throughout the country. Of course there are pros and cons to each side of the argument, but imposing term limits on the state legislature is the best way to ensure consistently fair representation throughout the state. There are several negatives for allowing career politicians. If a candidate has been re-elected time after time, this makes things very difficult for the opposition. This is important because that career politician has name recognition on his/her side, which could result in voters electing the candidate based on who they recognize and not the issues at hand. This results in less competitive elections because citizens believe their vote won’t make a difference in a one-sided election. The problem with this is that people become less involved in their state government, which results in a small portion of the state’s ideas represented. In addition, career politicians may not recognize the ever-changing beliefs of generations over a period of time. Although West Virginia’s belief system has not varied much, the legislator will likely have the same ideas that he/she has always had, which greatly decreases diverse ideologies within the legislature. Ultimately, term limits create citizen legislators and make it easier for someone with good, diverse ideals to be in a position to influence the law-making that a majority of society supports. States need competitive elections so that the people feel as if they have a say in who is elected, and therefore are more involved and grasp a better understanding of the policies that are most beneficial for the state collectively.
ReplyDeleteTerm limits are a great thing. Whether that be for the state of West Virginia or any other state in the country. I think that term limits make politicians honest. Term limits can let more people put newer ideas into the government. I think that politician’s job is to get reelected, after that they worry about their actual job. Term limits would help with that a lot, they would have a lame duck period and it would define their legacy. Currently in the United States congress the Average age is 58 in the house and 61 years old in the Senate. The current population over 60 in the United States is 19% but represent about half of the congress. I think this is directly related to no term limits in congress. State legislatures tend to be more younger but you get my point. This isn’t West Virginias legislature but I think it’s nice to use congress as an example. I think term limits would be good, but they can’t be too short and not too long. If they’re too short I feel like there will be as many qualified people could run, but I would like a limit.
ReplyDeleteLike many other students have said, I think there is a strong argument for both sides of this topic. I do think that West Virginia should set a term limit though.
ReplyDeleteI'll start my argument by referring to Sarah H. response. I agree that the term should be set for 8 years or maybe longer for the same reason she gave. West Virginia is a small state population wise and if you you change whoever is in the house every other year, it is going to be hard to find someone who cares about their job and elect them into the office.
My next argument is that I don't think it is good to elect someone, and have them make their career in the house. They could just get to the point where they only care about their paycheck, and not focusing on issues going on in the country or state and what they could do to actually fix them. This could lead to whoever was elected, losing support from their voters, but the voters could be stuck with them anyway.
I also agree with the argument mentioned in the original blog post that term limits reduce corruption. A lot of times you hear about political corruption, it's because that person has endless amount of years in office, and they have the time to plan and execute a plan. If you have a term limit, they only have a certain amount of years which gives them no time to find a way and steal money or do something corrupt. Instead, with the years they have there is only time to focus on the issues that matter. They can focus on actually helping people and the state and nation.
Term limits are inherently contradictory to democracy. They decree that everyone is free to run for office unless they succeed for too long a time. Punishing those who run a great campaign, make their districts happy, or are just savvy enough to be reelected seems like an extremely unconstitutional notion. If a man or woman runs a company extremely well for many years, does it seem logical to expel them for no reason other than they have been their too long? Obviously positions in government are different than privately owned enterprise, but the principle remains the same; why punish success? There are a few valid arguments for limiting legislators, but instead of establishing limitations the game can simply be changed to be less rigged. Incumbents have an enormous advantage during reelection, which is both fair and unfair to the challenger. On one hand, the fact that an incumbents name recognition is usually greater than the challengers is no fault of the legislator, people are naturally going to know the winners of the last election. On the other, the use of tax payer dollars to campaign is completely unfair. Franking, or any other use of government funds in a campaign, should be highly illegal and completely eliminated from elections. People with just have to go without "informative reports" during election season. This could limit the incumbent advantage without placing term limits on the legislature. The fact remains that every American should be able to run for office if they desire and every American should be able to vote for the representative of their choice, whether he is running for the first time or the tenth. If district x wants to elect a convicted criminal to office for the sixth time then it is technically their right to do so. I would like to think America is intelligent enough to keep the right people in office and oust the wrong ones. Therefore West Virginia should not introduce term limits in their legislature and continue to let the people decide who will represent them. For these sanctions are not only a limit on terms, but ultimately a limit on freedom.
ReplyDeleteI think that both sides have good arguments why term limits are a good or bad idea. Personally, I would have to say that I think term limits would be a good thing for West Virginia. I would have to agree with Marissa's point that if we have term limits placed on our own president, why shouldn't we have term limits for legislators? It would likely help to eliminate those who look at the position as a possible life-long job and encourage those who are up to date with current issues to run. Of course there may be someone who wants to dedicate their life to government and making a change, but placing term limits on legislators doesn't make that something that they cannot do. They can always run for a different office using their past experience and people they have met/worked with previously. I think unless they truly care about government, they will fall behind on the current issues and just get in a routine of getting through a day at work. I believe the terms should be no longer than 8-10 years. The argument can be made that if someone is doing a great job as a legislator and the people like them, then the people should be allowed to elect who they want. I think it may take away SOME choice of the voters, but overall would be better for the position to have someone up to date on the current issues as well as eliminating corruption and those who simply want a life-time job. In closing, as I stated before if we have term limits on our president we should have them on the legislators as well. I think it would be great to use term limits in WV as well as many, if not all states.
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
DeleteI like how you made the point about if we have term limits placed on our own president, why shouldn't we have term limits for legislators. I agree with you that it would really help to eliminate those who look at the position as a possible life long job and encourage those who are up to date with current issues. That was something important that was pointed out, and something I didn't really think about at first. Good point!
Although there are benefits to having term limits, such as having more competitive elections, preventing politicians from being crooked, etc. I believe there are many more benefits to not having any term limits at all. As one of the articles stated, we always have term limits, if citizens do not like who is in office they have the option to vote him/her out. The benefits I see in not having any term limitation would be that it may take more than the politicians term of 2 or 4 years to complete the objective they wish to complete. The longer an official has a seat in the congress the more seniority they will build up with other members. By maintaining office for an extended period, the official can begin to form trust amongst other members which will help them to pass things that they wish to have passed. The same applies to citizenship, if a citizen trusts and likes their congressman and feels as if he/she is doing a good job then why not stick with him? You don’t have a term limit on your spouse do you? That is unless he/she does something wrong then you can give them the boot. From a voter’s point of view term limits are somewhat undemocratic and by placing limits the vote is being taken out of my hand. By placing term limits on an elected official the government is basically saying that the voter does not know what is best; I beg to differ.
ReplyDelete-Chase McClung
To say if West Virginia should have legislative term limits is a tricky question. There are a lot of positives and negatives when it comes to this situation. One positive would be that there would be a major reduction in corruption. Also there would be a huge increase in diversity in the legislature and it would create lots of citizen legislators. An example that makes term limits a good idea for West Virginia would be if someone wasn't doing a good job in their first term you could easily vote them out and replace them with someone new that you felt comfortable with. With that example being stated this also makes more competitive elections for these spots. Now on the other hand, establishing term limits has a few negatives with it. If you apply term limits it gives the governor more power and more power for lobbyists. Also it reduces the quality for those seeking office. While we lose quality, we would also lose the experience, maturity, and knowledge of those that are already in these positions. Another point you could make is that you still wouldn't get rid of bureaucracy. Their would be a lack of diversity, competition, and further opponents wouldn't want to run against someone that is already held in higher regards. So all in all in my opinion, I do not think that term limits would be a good idea in West Virginia mainly because of the lack of experience coming in and out of the legislature if limits existed.
ReplyDelete~Tyler A. Tumblin
It is my opinion that Legislative Limits should not be placed in West Virginia or any state for that matter. If the people of that county, district, or even state feel most connected to or like the political standpoints of a certain representative then why should they not be allowed to elect him or her into congress? It is just another power given to the government restricting the men and women of America. I fully understand the desire to have young people with new ideas get excited by entering legislature, but it should not come at the cost of forcing potentially a well-liked and very hard working representative out of their position. Yes plenty of good things have come from representatives who spend longer times in congress, but that is also not a reason to keep someone in office for an extended period of time. Just in the state of West Virginia, Sen. Jay Rockefeller has been in our state legislature since 1985 and has done numerous things to benefit our state; he fought for a Toyota manufacturing plant to be placed in Buffalo creating many jobs for our citizens, he fought for further health benefits for our steel and coal workers, and since 2011 he has made numerous appropriations requests spanning from infrastructure funding for The National Writing Project to creating a new research and training center for the neurosciences. All the while staying a family favorite in his state, clearly desired by those he represents. Making a difference is accomplished by change, but change takes time. When you have legislators of two different beliefs who continually flip flop time in office nothing hardly gets accomplished. As soon as one system is in place the next candidate comes in and completely removes it for his own. Again showing why implementing a term limit is a bad thing for the state of West Virginia. Theres an old saying, "If its not broken, don't fix it". So if there isn't a want for a new face in congress, why force your citizens to pick one?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. I do not think that we should have limits on terms. I think that if the person does a good job and has the potential to get re-elected, then we should let that happen. If diversity is the issue, then more people should take the initiative to run against the former candidate.
DeleteIt can be argued that to have term limits to restrict those who may have gained too much power but it also restricts those who maybe have become professional and have been doing a good job at what they do. Term limits also increase the power of lobbyists and that would lead to the already dominating companies in West Virginia to gain more power more easily. Not having Term limits may also set a standard for whoever is in office. If they are doing a really good job and keep getting voted back in they will have a standard to keep or they may risk the chance to get voted out of their long-time job. This may also ensure that the opposite parties will also try to gain more support for their candidate to try to compete with someone who already has established support from the voters. Voter's choice being set to a time limit may disappoint many people.
ReplyDeleteI am in opposition to imposing term limits on state legislature elections. While it may seem like a good idea at first to constantly have a revolving door of freshman legislators, this system also comes with a host of problems.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most serious problems is the lame-duck problem. When an elected official knows that they cannot run for reelection, they are much more likely to make decisions that are unpopular with votes, as they will never need to answer to the voters. If there were no term limits, this problem would be virtually nonexistent.
In class, we talked about legislators doing case work. Almost everyone can agree that case work is a good thing. In some cases it takes a certain amount of seniority to get case work. When none of the legislators have very much seniority, less case work gets done.
Another norm that currently exists in our state legislatures is that each legislator is expected to specialize in something. Over the years they serve in the legislature, they become more and more of an expert in their chose subject. When legislators only serve for 4-10 years, they do not have as much time to specialize in a subject.
In her comment, Elise Coleman supports term limits. She talks about how "the American people as a whole" were dissatisfied with President Bush during the 2004 election, but he got reelected anyway. She also mentions that Obama made campaign promises which have still not been fulfilled to this day. I honestly do see how either one of these examples have anything to do with term limits.
Term limits in West Virginia is something that is highly debatable because there is no way to tell what could actually change or happen. Only theoretical situations could be created. I think that Term Limits is a bad decision for West Virginia.
ReplyDeleteFirst off I feel as if a representative is doing well enough, he or she deserves to keep doing their job. Say a representative is working tirelessly for the good of the people and keeps improving their lifestyles and their state. If there were term limits then this person could only do so much good in the time he is allotted. They don't gain the experience of a representative that has been in charge for so many years. The experience gained while actually in office is better than any practice or class or guide that a new coming representative might have done. They know everything about the job and know things that most likely no one else knows about what to do in their positions. Just like any other job
Second, people with little knowledge of the goals or how qualified the representative is could vote for the one with the most money, who put out the most ads, who had the most marketing towards the voters, etc. The position they will fill need has to be a steady, reputable leader.
Also the voters are the ones who decide who should leave or stay in office. If there is a representative who has an unlimited term, we can still vote him out. If he is doing good, we vote for him and keep him until he does something wrong or stops running. I do agree with the corruption aspect of no limit terms. That is a problem, but people who care about who is in office and what happens to them could just vote them out of office until someone is found who will not be corrupt.
So to sum it all up, No Limit Terms are the better choice here. I think they will yield the best results. Why vote a rep. in who will make change for 8, 10 years that will be changed the opposite way by the next party that gets elected in ?
In class discussions were very strong between having term limits and not having them. I honestly think it is hard to pick one without the other because both of them have their pros and cons. If they put the term limit then maybe people that know how to their jobs would leave and other knew ones would come not reaching full potential like the previous people that were in office. Then by the time they know how to do their jobs 100% its time for new re-elections.
ReplyDeleteIn my point of view I would rather them not put the term limits simply because people that work there and know how to their jobs will be re-elected by the citizens and people that don’t belong there would be replaced by new faces and they can show the people what they can do. In the other hand I don’t want them to put the limits because new people can show the citizen what they can do. They could try to run and in the end it is up for the citizen to choose the right person to represent them.
The other this thing would never happen at least in West Virginia because no matter how people both houses have their differences this is one thing that would never be passed in my opinion because they all want their jobs. This is why I think we should stay with the same system and not change it because it might be worse by taking the chance to do so.
I believe it would be beneficial for WV to adopt term limits for state legislature. There are some good points on both sides of the matter, but I believe the pros outweigh the cons. Something that kept coming up was corruption. I believe that term limits would keep corruption at bay from the state legislature. I also feel like a term limit would keep people out of office that were primarily running for the benefits and/or as a stepping stone to higher offices. An 8 year term limit would be acceptable, for members of office will still be able to make decisions on policy affecting the long-term, as well as short-term. Also, I feel this would make for a more diverse legislature, with a more wide variety of people have a chance at winning. A popular disagreement would be to say that good legislatures will eventually have to step down, but that is how it is for more pretentious political positions, and I think the same should apply to local offices. Also, one article posted had the argument that term limits are undemocratic, but I feel that allowing corrupt politicians the chance to stay in office for a great amount of time while not being honest is more undemocratic than term limits.
ReplyDeletePersonally I would sway in favor of instituting term limits in the West Virginia state legislature. I think one of the most important arguments in favor of term limits is maintaining the idea of citizen legislature. This ideal refers to a government where legislators primarily represent the citizens of the private sector that elected them. Many of the arguments against term limits say that they prevent legislators from using many terms gaining experience and expertise on the best way to govern. However, in practice the "experience" legislators gain by staying in office too long seems purely negative. Legislators who are in office too long gain influence among lobbyists and become experts in bringing back pork-barrel funds, but they lose touch with the desires of their constituents back home. Spend too long in the state legislature and you lose touch with the important issues at the local level. Term limits force new blood to cycle in at a decent rate and thus assure that legislators don't have too long to get entrenched in state politics.
ReplyDeleteI think term limits also encourage voters to take a more active and aware role in elections as well. Incumbents have a number of advantages over newcomers in elections, and many voters are satisfied to simply vote for a familiar name and maintain the status quo. Term limits help to lessen the tight grip incumbents can hold on a position and force people to take a more active role in voting by becoming familiar with new names on the ballot.
With term limits in place, the priority of legislators is not primarily to get re-elected next term. They have a limited time in office to fulfill their promises to their constituents and achieve what they set out to do. The objective should be to use your limited term to do the best you can for the people you represent, not to avoid rocking the boat in hopes of being re-elected. Term limits should motivate legislators to take action while they can, prevent them from becoming too detached from their constituents, and push voters to be more actively aware of what is going on in elections.
I do not believe that the state of West Virginia should institute term limits in the legislature. It takes time for new legislators to become acclimated to the legislature. It also takes time for them to create networks within the legislature, become accustomed to the rules and norms of the legislature, and also to become specialized in one area, unless they came in with expertise in that area. I also believe that it would be taking away from the liberty of the citizens to institute term limits. If the citizens of an area want to elect a delegate, or senator every time they come back up for re-election then it should be their right.
ReplyDeleteTerm limits also would not effect how close a senator or delegate is to their district. In West Virginia the legislature only meets for sixty days a year, unless called into special session. Also the length of the terms affects how in touch a legislator is with their district. In the state of West Virginia the House of Delegates serve two year terms, and the State Senate serves four year terms. This leads, especially in the House of Delegates, to an almost constant campaign mode from the legislators. They can not afford to become out of touch with their district, because if they do it could very easily mean the end of their career as a legislator. If they do become out of touch with their district or they become inept in the legislature the district will just replace them with someone new.
Term limits should not be imposed on West Virginia. While there have been strong arguments for term limits being enforced posted on here and other articles, the bad would outweigh the good.
ReplyDeleteSeveral of my classmates mentioned that the institutionalization on term limits would slow or stop corruption. While this COULD be true, it's negated by the fact that a corrupt House member can just jump ship to the Senate after their term limit comes up. To truly stop corruption, we would have to make the term limit apply to both the house and the senate, which is a rule that I don't see passing.
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/research/topics/documents/TermLimitsRepresentationofWomen.pdf
In the research paper above, it's stated that imposing term limits would give women a greater chance to be elected and, therefore, represented. However, a term limit doesn't stop different men from being elected, so I fail to see how a term limit would raise women in the house and senate.
The real issue here is political literacy. Looking at it this way, term limits are almost an insult to voters, implying that citizens don't know what they're doing. Setting a term limit is a failsafe in case voters can't be relied on to elect the proper people for the job.
I think legislative term limit would be a really good idea for WV. Although you can certainly argue that the longer a person stays at a job, the better they get; we still need fresh ideas in order to improve our state. WV has so much potential and if we have the same old people who are not even interested in making our state better or advancing, then it's not going to go anywhere. I believe everyone or at least the ones who are interested, should get a chance to come out and express their ideas. Most senior people who have been in the legislature for a long time are only worried about their status and positions. They do not care about improving or changing anything. They are blinded by the power and money and it is really unfair for the younger generation who have better ideas. Limiting the term years would give the young voices a chance to come out and introduce new and improved ideas to the legislature and it will help create WV a even better place. Limiting term years would also encourage people to do better in a sense that they want to leave the legislature with something to remember by. That might help reduce the greed of holding on to the position and a little competition never hurts anyone. It will definitely be a very good thing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, it is very important that we have fresh ideas in order to improve our state, regardless of the argument that the longer a person stays at a job the better they will get, Although that is probably true, I felt that fresh ideas would make a more positive impact in the future as well! Also, I think it helps get rid of anyone that is just wanting the job for the "power" or popularity that comes with it.
DeleteIt is my personal opinion that term limits should be instituted to limit more than four terms. I see that many on this blog agree and many disagree. Those who disagree have often stated that imposing term limits causes a lot of inexperienced players to be elected, and is therefore a bad thing. While I respect the apparent wisdom in this statement, I think it is important to recall the things that are most important to politicians. These things are getting elected and reelected. If a politician has done well within the state legislature and can no longer be reelected, some might say that this is a great loss to the people. However, if that politician has done well and has the approval of the people, the people will likely elect somebody who supports the policies that are in place from the previous term. This leads to good policy, even from an inexperienced legislator. Therefore, inexperience is not an issue with term limits. Now, in the spirit of argument, say that I do support term limits on the grounds of legislators losing touch with their district. Admittedly, this does sometimes happen and it isn't wrong to say that this is a valid concern. Just remember that politicians want to be elected/reelected. If a politician is no longer serving their district, he will very quickly lose his job to another more district conscious politician. So there are two valid sides to this argument. However, since the system will regulate itself on the principle of desired election/reelection, it is fairly safe to say that term limits are a better policy.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I think that there comes a time in a legislators career where they have done their job the best way they possibly could and it is their time to move on to something else or retire. Being a state legislature is an important job, they oversee the state and all the citizens that reside in it. Making the best decisions that they think would be beneficial to be a successful part of America. I firmly believe that there should be a limited amount of time that each legislature should serve. The only way this country can grow and improve is through new individuals coming in and giving new perspectives. I feel that especially in WV people can get comfortable with a person in a specific position and don’t see need for change, but situations like these can lead to the people in powers just making a job out of being a legislator and that’s not right. If someone running in the legislature can just keep on running and running and the voters could just keep voting for the same person. This makes it very hard for other possible politicians to get noticed and get elected if the voters keep voting for the same person every two years. There comes a time when new adventures and career paths become present and being a state legislature was a good stepping stone or career move for any politically involved person to be.
ReplyDeleteThe argument for term limits is a touchy one in the state of West Virginia. While having term limits would do a lot of things. One eliminating a lot of corruption that politicians experience after years and years in office. Two term limits will also help bring diversity and other peoples perspective into office. However in order to get some things done in Washington you also need some seniority. Because of Robert C. Byrds seniority the great state of West Virginia was able to get things it might not have been able to . This is true with other states as well. Some Politicians use their position in office to help bring programs or things to help their districts. So ultimately Im not for term limits and if a district is really wanting a politician out of office they need to vote them out.
ReplyDeleteThe discussion of term limits makes for a great debate. I can easily see both sides and why some are opposed to term limits, while others are for it. I feel as if there should be a term limit set, but it should be a decent amount of time. As others in class have stated, possibly 8 years or more. This way, politicians have time to make decisions not only short term, but long term as well. Also, having a term limit will push those in power to work for what they want. By making a career out of something, it is often easy to just push things aside, knowing that there is always more time to get it done. A term limit could make it more of a priority for legislatures to achieve their goals. Also, a longer term limit will allow the time necessary for legislatures to fulfill promises. Setting a term limit for state legislature would also allow for fresh ideas from new candidates. Other legislatures should have a chance at being elected, allowing them to bring in new ideas. If someone is doing a negative job, it allows someone else to come into office and gain a positive reputation.
ReplyDeleteI can say I have seen the advantages and disadvantages of both sides of this argument. I really enjoyed Thomas Suddes argument against term limits in "The case against legislative term limits: Thomas Suddes" but while researching other articles to support my argument that term limits are a bad idea, I found an article called "Term Limits: Still a Bad Idea" which had a point right off the bat that Suddes didn't express. It states that while we may not want to limit our own Congress, we may see another state's Congressperson to be unfitting for the position therefor seeing term limits as a good idea. They say things such as "Throw the other state’s bum out of Congress, but not our own noble Solon. Our guy really brings home the bacon and he got my Social Security straightened out. We need term limits, though, because that rotten Congressman from the next state has been there forever, and we’ve got to get him out of there." (directly from article https://federalexpression.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/term-limits-still-a-bad-idea.pdf)
ReplyDeleteWhile this argument may seem rare, it is another case to look at. It is purely unconstitutional to take away the right from the voters to elect whoever they wish, especially if you take that right away from voters in another state you do not belong to. Having term limits takes that right away from voters. It says that even though he may seem great to voters and may be bringing home the bacon, you as a voter can't make that decision. It is undermining the voters rights and intelligence.
I also believe it creates a well rounded individual, had they been in there for more years. If there is hope of getting reelected, they will do whatever it takes to serve the people in hopes of being in office again. By limiting their terms, there is little incentive to serve the people simply because they will no be reelecting them.
I believe term limits are a terrible idea for West Virginia. If Mountaineers are Always Free, then why do we need to limit terms? It's a voters freedom.
I can understand both sides of the argument but I absolutely agree with having shorter term limits in West Virginia. I feel as though it should be a limit of two years with chance of reelection. Peoples needs change over time and I think making a term last for 8 or 10 years has many risk to it. People having to deal with the politics of politics and becoming corrupt would be high if people had very long terms. Getting new people with new ideas would be refreshing. Not only for the people but for the legislature. It does make sense to fear that a shorter term limit will make it difficult to achieve the goals. But i honestly think it would make people work harder if they know that they only have a short time to achieve the goal. I know this from my own personal life. I know that if I procrastinate on an assignment that is due let's say in two days I will dedicate those two days to only that assignment and 9 out of 10 times it is a great assignment because I dedicated so much time on it. I think it would be the same with a shorter term limit.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that West Virginia needs to use term limits. Yes, it would bring new faces but I agree that imposing short term limits such as 2 years would make it difficult for the state to get anything done with constant new faces and different issues being brought up. I know the concern of not using term limits would be making careers in the legislature, but if the incumbent is doing a good job and still staying connected to the people than they should be reelected. I agree that bringing in new faces and new issues is a good thing but I also agree that with new faces comes with inexperience and if term limits were used than there would be a lot of wasted time with an inexperience person trying to figure out how the government works. I think we all would want an experienced candidate that knows how the government works and someone with seniority that can show the younger, new faces how it works. So I do not think term limits should be used because of inexperience and the concern of nothing being accomplished in a short term length.
ReplyDeleteObviously there is always going to be a strong argument for both sides of the discussion and as most of my classmates have said the topic of whether or not West Virginia should have term limits or not is a complicated one to take sides on. I think that both sides have good reasoning behind them. However I on the other hand would agree with the discussion that West Virginia should have term limits. I think that term limits will help with stopping politicians from getting votes with their money rather then their decisions they make in office. Politicians should work harder on getting to know what the citizens really need and telling them they are going to make those changes rather then buying their votes. There is also a greater chance of lessening the possibility of corruption in office. Change is something our world is use to, it runs on change and having that change within office would be good for the people keeping the same person for too long will begin to become to much of a norm. Different faces would bring different change and refreshingly new ideas where as keeping the same person would keep the same ideas and nothing would every change. I think though that in the end the voters should have this choice because who knows what they need better then the citizens when choosing their legislator or whoever it may be they’re voting for.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are definitely several beneficial aspect of term limits, I don't feel West Virginia needs to use them. As a few of my classmates already pointed out, two-year or four-year term limits, I feel, would only hinder West Virginia from getting anything done with a constant flow of new legislatures. I also feel that West Virginians are more than capable of not reelecting a legislature they feel is not fit or they're unhappy with just as easily as a term limit could oust them. I believe term limits often hinder good legislatures and the fact that they can "flip-flop" between the House and Senate without sitting out the four-year waiting period kind of negates the use for term limits all together, in my opinion. In conclusion, I believe West Virginia citizens can and should use their voting power to retain good legislatures and oust bad ones. I think this gives more power to the people, who are the ones whose interests should be placed first at the end of the day. Term limits would only hinder this.
ReplyDeleteThe discussion of which the state of West Virginia should set term limits for legislators is in my opinion, not all that important. Having said that, I do not think there should be a set term limit for legislators. Being from the New Jersey-New York area, I can tell that the state of WV and its constituents are much different than up north. West Virginia is one of those states that I feel can get away with having the same few people for years and years make decisions, because it is more of a state that has a ‘for the people’ feel to it. As we learned in class, the northeastern part of the country tends to lean towards politics as corrupt and seems to be all about power. Where in a state like West Virginia, it is more simply about helping out the greater good of the citizens. States like South Carolina and Texas also fit in this category, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in contradiction to my opinion, it could go the other way in the sense that there are a few select states in the nation (Florida for example) who consistently have the same few people in the running for some kind of election within the state and these select few consistently for some reason win every time, but while they are in office, their approval numbers are always significantly low. These people have a name and face recognition but no real depth and significance to the position they hold.
I have also heard the argument that some states run better when they have a balance of a few years of both Republican majority/leaders, and Democrat majority and leaders. So if there were no term limits, it might become difficult for this theory to play out accurately.
I believe that term limits have it’s pros and cons; however, in my opinion the pros outweigh the cons. I think that with such a stressful job running our government, the individuals get exhausted and we need to bring someone new in for change - with new ideas and new motivation. If someone truly is that great of a leader, he or she can then take that experience and move on to other jobs in the government. After looking at different articles and videos on this subject, I found http://www.balancedpolitics.org/term_limits.htm to be very helpful. It took the information that I have been reading all along and broke it into two simple columns, a yes and a no column. Bullet point number seven in the article really caught my attention “There is less chance for corruption of government officials if time in office is limited; new politicians are less likely to have the knowledge to exploit the system for personal gain and are more skeptical of lobbyists & special interests.” I think that this made a very good point, after so long in office an individual would know more people and more information to get what he or she wanted done, even if it wasn’t in the best interest for the United States. Term limits also help limit giving more power to the members in the government who would fall under the “seniority” category. Although in some cases seniority is a positive, I believe that with a government and country that is always changing, we need new members to keep up with the new changing views of the new generations in power. After reading through my classmates posts, I like how Kelsey Jenkins wrote and cited "female candidates seem to find it easier to gain entry to term-limited legislatures than to non-term-limited legislatures and are more likely to gain leadership positions in high-turnover legislatures. The same is true for minority candidates."(http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/term-limits-lessons-campaign-reform). With such a fight for equality for women workers going on, I think that this is a very good point to make and is something that all individuals need to keep in mind.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking at both sides of the argument of imposing terms limits, I believe that the state of West Virginia should put limits on the numbers of years candidates can be in office. First off, having the same person in office for long periods of time would affect voter turnout. Voters will believe that because this candidate has been if office for so long that no other candidate will win, therefore they believe that their vote will not make a difference. This hinders the chance of any other candidate to successfully pursue campaigning and run for office. Without term limits, political culture will become more prevalent in West Virginia’s political culture. The more time these officials are in office, the more influence and power they gain. Term limits would help police corruption and make sure that certain individual’s influence does not reach every aspect of the state’s government. I agree with Chelsea and Mary when they said that new candidates would feel that they would have to prove themselves to citizens when getting elected. They will feel obligated to follow through with what they promised while they were running in order to gain the trust of West Virginians. If term limits are not applied then new candidates might never have the chance to win in elections and get the chance to prove themselves.
ReplyDeleteI believe that term limits are a very important part of U.S. government. It was never the intention of our founding fathers to make a career out of politics. Yes, I guess the longer they serve in the legislature you get to know more about where they stand on the issues. And if you do not like their stance you can always vote them out, but what I have observed through the years is the longer their in office the lazier they get.
ReplyDeleteLike all the blog assignments this one could go either way. On one hand; as mentioned in Thomas Suddes article, seniority is needed in legislation. They have been there longer; they have more connections and know how to work the lobbyists/others who may try to take advantage of new legislators. We also discussed in class how having seniority (not always) but most of the time helps states gain what they need. The seniority aspect of legislation could be hurt by term limits. This could also hurt any long term plans a legislator may have. If they have had something in the works that could help their state for a while, and then their term limit kicked them out before they could accomplish it, then the legislators work would have been for nothing. This problem could potentially show that you don’t have to worry about one problem because you will be out of office before you can do anything; almost creating a situation that says, don’t worry about this problem you don’t have enough time to do anything about it, it is the next guys problem. Also, hopefully, if a legislator was horrible at their job, then the voters would vote him or her out of there. At the same time if they were doing a great job, you could continue to vote them into office. On the other hand term limits do allow others to run who may not have had a chance previously. That could bring in new ideas. As we discussed in class, those legislators that have been around for a while do have the money and support needed to essentially wipe out the competition. I think that for West Virginia should not have term limits. The seniority of legislation has helped the state a lot. I also have faith that the voters will get rid of someone that they are not happy with. I could see how allowing one to become a life-long legislator could hurt the state in the sense that it could negatively impact the chances of new blood and new ideas, but like I said, I do have more faith in the voters to do what is needed for their state. After all they are the people who give the power to their legislators.
ReplyDeleteI think that West Virginia would be smart if they put legislative term limits into place. The President of the United States can only be president for 8 years so I think it should be the same for West Virginia politicians. I also believe that change is a good thing especially in politics. People can over stay their term in office and it can make it difficult to implement change and policies. I also feel that with shorter terms leaders will try to implement policies quicker because they know that their time in office is limited. West Virginia has plenty to work on especially with keeping their citizens in state and creating jobs. People with max 8 year terms can quickly bring change to this state. According http://termlimits.com/answers.htm “We also know that you as incumbents have so many built-in advantages that it is almost impossible to unseat you. One of those advantages is your ability to raise election war chests from those who do business with you every day on Capitol Hill.” So this gives past elected leaders an unfair advantage in winning upcoming elections. I think this is a bad thing for the Mountain state. They do it right with governs terms now they need to get it right with the legislature.
ReplyDeleteI believe that term limits are a good idea for the state of West Virginia. Most of my classmates took the stance that we do NOT need them, but I have to disagree. My classmate Josh Burns commented that term limits encourage voters to take a more active role in elections, and I have to agree. People want to know who the new faces on the ballots are. I think it not only would make voters more active but make the legislators more active as well. Knowing they have limited time, they will (hopefully) make the most of it to do all they can to fulfill their promises to the people. My classmate Marissa made a comment about how it makes sense to have term limits just like we have for presidents, and that was another comment that I found myself shaking my head in agreement over.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised observing the chart from NCSL and seeing that only 15 states have term limits. 8 years seems to be the status quo, besides a few states that had 6 and some that had 12. Personally, I think 8 would be reasonable- the same time as our president. I think the concept of keeping someone in office solely because of seniority is a very dangerous idea. Yes, term limits won’t get rid of corruption, BUT I believe they can absolutely aid in controlling it.
I found myself agreeing with most of the arguments in favor of term limits from termlimits.com, the link from the blog. This line really spoke to me: “What is needed is experience in the real world life experiences from new blood with fresh ideas.” This in rebuttal to the argument that term limit gets rid of people who have experience, maturity, and know what they are doing. In reality, the fresh blood is more in touch with what’s REALLY going on. Being in the legislature for years upon years can be almost like not living in reality, and we need new people to come in and get things done.
Charles Peck
ReplyDeletePoliticians are the “will of the people” to many, and “representations of the people” to others. To some, politicians are the “will of the people who have the most money” and the “will of the people who look out for themselves, and not the betterment of the rule of law.” Term limits, regardless of what the limit is, aims to provide a way for electorates to finally be able to make decisions that would normally be avoided/pushed back in attempts to keep their seat in the legislature. Term limits effectively create a vehicle that moves the electorate from a person who votes based on party, to a person who votes based on principle. With this shift, we find ourselves with an independent legislature that studies the issues, not the voter turnout rates.
Some of the students agreed with Suddes (http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/07/the_case_against_legislative_t.html) as he basically said that we don’t need term limits because we can simply vote those who we do not want out of office. Although that sounds easy, a 1998 Cato report established a counter-argument that states “Districts with highly senior legislators often impose externalities [burdens such as higher taxes] on other districts by securing the enactment of provisions the other districts dislike either on ideological grounds or because they bear the financial cost . . . . Voting your bum out is not a solution when what you want to do is oust the other districts’ bums. For that you need term limits, which oust the other districts’ more senior bums and thus strongly increase equality in legislative representation.” Although it is easy to vote your bum out of office if he is terrorizing your community, it is a little harder to vote against the legislators outside of your district who are doing the same. By using term limits, districts become more equal - and there is open to change. Unfortunately, elections are a tough way to limit terms, because many voters suffer from a “all politicians hurt me, but my guy is ok” mentality. Oftentimes it is not the politicians that you elect that hurt you the most.
According to one comment, legislators who are inexperienced with the legislature will have a hard time controlling bureaucracy. The fact that “experienced” legislators have these alliances with bureaucracies is actually a problem that term-limits solves! I am under the impression that those who have had more experience obeying the laws passed by these senior-legislators have more experience with the ill-effects of the law. Another student claimed that there would be no one to mentor the new representatives so that they can compete with other legislators; an argument that would hold ground if the other “competing” legislators weren’t also susceptible to term limits.
Although many of my colleagues assume that elections are the easy way to limit terms, voters seem to disagree. Although voters do have the ability to know who is representing them and who isn’t, oftentimes the voter is faced with the unfortunate situation that they are voting for a person just because they know s/he has the closest chance of winning, even if the candidate doesn’t actually represent the voter. When term limits are on the ballot and not on a bill that legislators vote on, they have been approved the majority of the time, because most people do believe that they want to see fresh ideas and new people representing them. (http://ballotpedia.org/Term_limits_on_the_ballot)
Many are also under the idea that lobbyists would hold more power over congress. I don’t see this as a fair argument. What helps the lobbyists are limitless terms, where a man who relies on the lobby money to insure the win of his next term in office. With term limits, we will see more votes/bills out of the legislators’ opinion, and not out of the lobbyist’s money. If teacher unions decide that their candidate isn’t representing them properly, instead of bribing them with another term in office, they can simply get themselves armed and ready to win the next one with a new guy.
I believe that West Virginia should not put limits on terms. If you have someone in there that is doing a great job at getting things done for the State of West Virginia then I would want them to stay there. I think the voters should keep up with them and if they see that they are not doing what they said they would do for the state then they need to be sure and vote for a new person when its reelection time. Just because someone has been there for many years doesn't mean that the new guy wont beat him at reelection. They have to show how they can do better for the state. I don't think they will become lazy if they are there for many years because they know if they become lazy then there's a good chance they will not win the next reelection.
ReplyDeleteAs we have discussed in class, there are many valid arguments for and against term limitations. Although term limits are meant to be a solution for corruption, there often both good and bad things that come out of them. In my opinion, the state of West Virginia should in fact put limits on the amount of terms (years in office) that each candidate is able to be a part of. By having these guidelines set out for each candidate in office, there will be a better chance of equality among office.
ReplyDeleteOne of the reasons I believe term limits will benefit the state of West Virginia would be the idea of having constant new ideas flourishing throughout the state. As Kathryn and Chelsea said in several posts above, constantly brining new people and faces to the surface of districts is very important. By having new members constantly put into the legislature, they will able to target new and current issues. In addition, by having term limits, it will prevent candidates from trying to pursue life long careers in office. Although that does sound appealing to some people, it can realistically end up being a problem because members in office for so long will loose their connection with what they were originally in office for.
Another reason why term limits should be put in place for the state of West Virginia would be to increase diversity. Like we discussed in class, term limits allow the state to open up to new ideas and arguments, rather than keeping the same ones in place for however many years. This also would decrease the seniority gap, which is when people are kept in office according to how long they have been serving. Overall, I do believe that term limits will improve state legislature in West Virginia. Other states have proved that this system works, so I do believe that West Virginia can definitely benefit from it as well.
I agree. I think it's very important to maintain diversity in the congress, and term limits may be the only way to help us keep that.
DeleteI believe that there should not be term limits for legislators. This is a hard topic to take a side but I have three reasons that made me take the side of not limiting the terms of legislators. Experience, people’s choice and less executive power are the main reasons I took this side.
ReplyDeleteIn every legislative branch, the ones that do not have term limits; there are a few of old people who have spent more than 20 years representing their district. These know everything about their jobs, they can also teach new members. Experience plays a great role in having a strong legislative branch. If we have term limits, then all of the members and senates will be considered new because the oldest one of them have just spent less than eight years in the legislative branch.
Reelection can be considered the better alternative to term limits. Every legislative branch has reelections every two or four years. People can choose who ever they want to represent them. This is way better than a law that restricts their choices. If the people want someone to represent them forever, it is their choice and they can make it. It is not fair to have a law that, in some way, makes the choices instead of people. This will lead in bringing less qualified people to office.
One of the big reasons for having a legislative branch is to limit the power of the executive branch. By having term limits for the legislators, the legislative branch will get weak and the executive branch will get more power. This is because the legislative branch will be full of new people with little or no experience.
I think it's very important to have legislative term limits because it will prevent legislatures from getting to comfortable in their position. It is important to have a even distribution of power between legislatures, and that different political point of views are reperesented in the congress. A legislature may easily become set in their ways after years of serving in the congress, and they may eventually feel like they have more of a say in the congress since they've been there for the longest period of time. Therefore it's necessary to have term limits in order to avoid having the same congress men/women reelected over and over again.
ReplyDeleteHowever the opposing side have some valid points as well. Thomas Suddes discussed in the article "The case against legislative term limits" that we should be able to reelect those we are content with and fire those we're not content with anymore. I can agree with this to some extent, but I still believe that term limits are necessary.
- Fatou Bittaye
Term limits are definitely something that’s widely debated, as demonstrated by the articles listed here and the countless articles I came across in my research of this topic. Both sides have very strong arguments, but I was more convinced that we should not have term limits.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main points brought up in the first article is that the elections we hold for our legislators are already the term limits. And I completely agree with this. Every couple years, voters have the chance to go and vote for the constituent they believe would be best suited for the job. If they are doing well, then they are reelected. If they are doing bad, then they are not. It’s as simple as that. Those that argue for limits say that with term limits it would be easier to rule out corruption and that often times, we need change in our House/Senate. Yes it’s good to have turnover, but if a legislator is getting the job done, why is it necessary to kick them out just because they’ve been in office for ‘too long’?
When you allow legislators to keep office, for as long as necessary, you have someone in there who knows their stuff. The budget, taxes, policies and changes that need to be made and how those changes will affect everything else. A fresh face is good every now and then, but do our voters not have the competence to make that decision when the time comes? A strong argument can be made that they can’t, but it happens. Then in the next election they might pay more attention and vote in someone who knows what they’re doing.
I think that there should be term limits for legislators in all states, including West Virginia. I was shocked when I looked at the chart from NCSL and found that only 15 states do. As many of my peers have mentioned above, there are strong arguments for both sides, however I believe that West Virginia would certainly benefit from term limits for many reasons.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, West Virginia could use new ideas. As addressed in the article from www.termlimits.com, term limits would not cause a loss of experience, maturity and knowledge, rather they would get almost everything accomplished at a far quicker rate. A loss of experience would also directly increase experience in other “real world” professions, which therefore would increase a more steady flow of the fresh ideas that any given state legislature is lacking.
I think that term limits are important because they would also eliminate single individuals having too much political power. Certain long-time incumbents have proven to be harmful to their own individual states as a result of their seniority. Citizens of every state deserve to be fairly and accurately represented from year-to-year, which is virtually impossible without term limits.
I feel that West Virginia would benefit greatly from an eight-year term limit. Eight years is long enough for individuals to accomplish a great deal, yet it would also get them out before their decision-making is impaired as a result of having too much authority. As my classmate, Whitney Kesner, explained, legislators are more likely to slack off when they know they are guaranteed their spot. Term limits would enhance diligent work because legislators would know that they only have a certain amount of time to get what they want accomplished. If citizens saw beneficial progress they would be inclined to reelect their legislator, whereas if they do not, they wouldn’t. This serves as primary motivation and backs my stance that term limits should be mandated for legislators in West Virginia.
When it comes to term limits for public officials I am split on which level of government should have them. In Congress I strongly support term limits largely because our national government has been continuously expanding and exerting too much power. A career politician is not what the Framers of our Constitution intended. According to James Madison in the Federalist papers he writes, "it is sufficient for such a government that the persons administering be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments" either "during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior."
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with the views of Madison for our federal government, I do not believe that they are necessary for our state governments. I would correlate most of my arguments against term limits with the article about the Ohio legislature. Citizens of a particular state are affected by state policies on a day to day basis more than federal. Therefore, it is their responsibility to pay closer attention to their state legislators and have a higher sense of political knowledge when going to the polls to vote. If they feel that their legislator is not doing a good job they can vote them out come election time. Looking at the salaries of state officials, a majority of them require that he or she hold another job for supplemental income. This makes those legislatures motivated by a desire to serve and not a desire for power. Even though these state legislators may aspire to hold office nationally, they would be limited by a term limit and put an end to their political career before they become too powerful. For the state of West Virginia, term limits will show that it hurts its citizens choices for representation. The best candidate will be stripped of his position as time expires and a lack of moral duty will follow. To conclude, term limits should be imposed to protect our citizens from too much national power and not for the smaller governments where they serve a smaller constituency.
After reading up on the issue and through everyone’s post, I find myself slightly siding with it being in West Virginia’s best interest to have term limits. When also coming to this conclusion, I believe that all states should have term limits — but we can save that for another day. And I agree with Jacy when saying the main supporting reason behind my argument is that term limits allows for better representation.
ReplyDeleteAs we all know, our world is rapidly changing. We find ourselves in different debacles every time, personal and communal. With legislators who have no end to their terms, and keep getting elected by their age group, we see no fresh look upon things or see it through different eyes. Also term limits gives all candidates a fair chance and prevents corruption. Whether corruption is at an all time high or not too much of a problem, in both cases, term limits will help lower the corruption rate. Also, during each election every candidate will have a chance. There will be less intimidation and that means more potential legislators will be encouraged and go fourth with running. This allows all walks of life and an arraignment of perspectives to the table. With the most popular candidates winning, this will do nothing but allow us to grow as a state. Term limits will keep us fresh and not rot in old traditions and beliefs.
I also see the opposing side that Sara states. She says term limits shouldn’t exactly be a thing in West Virginia because don’t we want legislators that are comfortable and experienced with their position. And comfortability and experience comes with multiple consecutive terms. This is a very valid statement but I do think most citizens would pick a fresh look upon things than rather comfortability. Being too comfortable can also be a bad thing. This is what also can lead to corruption in the state. But we also have second or third generation families who have their son or daughter in the office. This can help keep the experience of it all by having your father or mother mentor you. This will also make the citizens who support the views held by previous legislators happy. But through it all, I do believe that term limits should be required for West Virginia.
In my opinion, I believe that West Virginia should place term limits. 8 years seems like enough time for candidates to get their ideas and change through the government. I agree with Chelsea when she said issues and problems will grow if candidates get to spend a lifetime in office. The main problem that will happen is the connection between the represented district and the politician. Limiting the term will also allow more candidates to be elected. Instead of seeing and hearing the same ideas from the same people, we will get to hear what others have to say about changing the state. West Virginia will benefit from having term limits rather than having the same candidates in and running for office.
ReplyDeleteTerm limits are not a good idea for the West Virginia legislature. There are negatives for both having and not having term limits but one way seems to far outweigh the other. The general idea that term limits help curb corruption has no real evidence to back it up. Part of that theory is that if you elected officials are not constantly currently running for reelection they take power away from lobbyist but unless you prevent the officials for running for any other office at any other level of government that is not true. And if you were to prevent that you would be getting very inexperienced politicians at very high levels. As said in the clevland.com article it also punishes politicians that aren't corrupt and do a good job. Looking at it cynically even if this is a very small percentage you want these people to stay in office. It might keep terrible legislators from making a career in office but there is nothing preventing people from voting them out if they want to.
ReplyDeleteI will admit, I just don’t have a solid standing on this issue. Both sides make good points that are reasonable and that appeal to my values and ideas. But there are so many ifs, ands, or buts, regarding the most popular arguments for term limitations. The point that was made about incumbents having advantage in elections is true, but at the same time, if the incumbent had disappointed the people it stands to reason that they wouldn’t be re-elected. Then the argument is made that term limits would keep sleazy politicians from remaining in office, which is great, but then again it would keep great politicians from remaining in office as well, which is not so great. It is said we can “vote people out”, but I don’t trust the American public to make educated decisions about politics. Another argument is that term limits would bring fresh ideas and “new blood” to office, but what if those fresh ideas fail horribly and the “new blood” end up being even worse politicians? An argument against is that term limits infringe on our constitutional rights, which has some validity, but there are technically so many other things we do that also infringe on our constitutional rights. I looked at http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-congress-have-term-limits which says 76% of debaters say yes to term limits, and 24% say no, which shows that the public opinion on this website leans towards term limits, but after reading the entries against, I’m not 100% in favor. And after reading this article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/the_term_limits_question.html I especially wasn’t convinced. I understand where arguments like Chelsea Flannery’s come from, but I don’t agree. Just because someone is doing something they’ve done forever doesn’t mean they lose contact with their subject. Actually it’s just the opposite. Wouldn’t it make sense that someone who has done something for a long time would be better at it? I agree more with Sara Wells’ points. Specialization and mentoring are important in any career, but especially politics. But then Emma Trapp makes excellent points for term limits, and the article she mentioned made sense to me. I don’t think we should abandon all regulation for politicians getting into, and staying in, office. I just don’t think there is a clear winner whether we should or shouldn’t have term limits.
ReplyDeleteI believe that legislative term limits for West Virginia is a good idea. Term limits have many advantages that tend to generally outweigh their pitfalls. For instance, Setting legislative term limits help limit corruption and tend to shy away from the traditionalist way of voting where one representative will be in office for say 8 years and then someone in his family will replace him but keep the same ideology. This has been proven to demonstrate corruption and also not address the needs of the people in the district. Without term limits, corruption can be overwhelming and result in an elite power group absorbing and keeping the power. It is important to see new faces in positions of power ever few years to keep authority dynamic, and representative of the needs of the citizens in the district. People in power often have the skill sets to influence the citizens through persuasion and some officials can be elected over and over and end up making a career out of it if there are no term limits. When an official has been in office for 6+ years, they can feel a sense of entitlement and stop caring about the public because they think that the job will be there for them forever. This is when problems arise and a lot of damage can happen for the state in one year if new fresh faces that are willing to work hard don't come into the legislature.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that West Virginia absolutely does need term limits, and all of the states that currently are under no limit need to adopt this idea as well, for that matter. The way I see it is, if the president of the United States, the most important and dominant role in our country is bound by term limits, why would any other political figure of lesser importance not be? Even if we have a president who literally everyone loves, democrats and republicans alike, regardless of that when his (or her) two terms in office are up. No exceptions at all. So if the main figure representing and controlling our nation has to abide by these rules, why should West Virginia legislatives not have to follow these same rules?
ReplyDeleteAnother reason that West Virginia should have term limits is to increase diversity in the legislature. Why would you want the same person trying to handle all of the problems within the state for a lifetime? In my opinion, I would rather get a few different viewpoints on how to fix issues in my state as opposed to just one person’s ideas. New problems arise every single day everywhere in America. It just makes more sense to limit the legislators term lengths in West Virginia for that very reason, you need new ideas flowing into the legislature or the same problems will just linger in your state for years, because there has never been a new way of thinking and developing solutions.
The issue for having term limits is very controversial, however I believe West Virginia should have term limits. I think it is beneficial for the voters, because they would feel like they have more control in their legislature. The legislator can be reelected if he is doing a good job, but if he is not then the voters can make sure they choose someone better for the job. It also puts more pressure on the legislator, which makes him work harder in order to keep his position. I also understand the problems with term limits, such as legislators not being able to have as much experience in congress. However, in my opinion I think it is more beneficial to the voters to have term limits.
ReplyDeleteBoth sides offer valid reasons as to why or why not terms should be limited. I believe that terms of legislatures should definitely be limited. Some argue that if we wanted to, we could vote them out at any time, that’s why we have elections and therefore their terms are technically limited. I hate the word technically. If you’re implying you will be limiting them anyway, then why not make it a matter-of-fact. The idea of someone being able to have unlimited time in office is absurd because with that comes corruption. Those already in office have a lot more funding a lot more connections and a lot more sheep voting for them just because “they haven’t done so bad of a job.. I think.” This limits new and fresh eyes in our legislature. No one is going to vote for a new candidate when the other candidates name sounds a lot more familiar. Allowing completely new members to enter every so often, I believe, would help our country greatly. Some incumbents have been sitting on the same problems for years, by bringing in new, fresh-eyes, we may be able to solve some of these problems. Many believe that if a candidate is doing a good job, they should be able to keep doing a good job, and I believe that too, but the risk is just too great and there are plenty of people that can do a good job, or better. I believe in term limits for legislatures for the same reason I believe in term limits for the President, too much time in power or in the same position isn’t good for anyone; it leads to corruption, getting too comfortable, and doesn’t allow any diversity. By allowing the same incumbents to run as many times as they want, we are limiting ourselves by not allowing new (maybe better) forces in our legislature.
ReplyDeleteThere are good arguments for both sides of the debate over having term limits for legislators in the state of West Virginia. Although allowing legislators to serve as long as they want has some benefits I believe that West Virginia should impose term limits. The main reason for wanting to have term limits is to create more of a diversity in the state House and Senate. If one politician is popular with voters, he or she will most likely to continue being elected and will hold that position for decades. This may seem to be a good thing because it allows that person to gain an expertise in that position. However this legislator may soon become too comfortable with the job and may just focus on keeping that job as a career. If a newly elected legislator realizes that they only have a limited time in office, then that person may be more motivated to get more things done in a shorter period of time. All candidates have an agenda for what they want to accomplish in office and term limits will allow them to focus more on that agenda. Term limits will also allow new people to come into office who have a new agenda. This will allow a real change in how the state would be run, which would most likely benefit the state. Keeping the same old legislators would most likely lead to nothing getting done as they would feel like they did everything they wanted to do in the past and now just focus on getting reelected. As expressed in the “Citizens for Term Limits” article, career politicians aren’t really beneficial to the legislation. Politicians with experience in the position are not better than new ones. I agree with the statement that says the best kind of experience comes from real world experiences because real hardworking people should be the ones who run the state rather than corrupt career politicians.
ReplyDeletePersonally I believe that West Virginia should not implement term limits on candidates. If you have a person in office who is doing a phenomenal job and can continue to for a long time why would you try to fix something that is not broken? I've always believed that the person in office should always be who is best for the job regardless of gender, race, religion, etc..As i stated before why should someone get forced out of office that is already doing a great job simply because he or she has "been there for too long". If someone gets out of the touch with the times or starts failing to reach expectations then you vote them out of office next term it's as simple as that. One of the major downfalls of having term limits is that if a representative knows that regardless of what he does or accomplishes, at the end of the term he is still being forced out of power. This could cause people to either just be incredibly lazy and passive and just collect the money they are going to make or they could make some corrupt bad decisions that only benefit friends or himself knowing that even if the majority of people don't like what he is doing it doesn't matter to him cause no matter what he did he was going to be out of office come next term elections.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that West Virginia should have term limits for legislators. Bringing in new legislators is not always a positive. Experience is a valuable asset when it comes to politics and limiting the amount of time good legislators serve can hurt the state more than help it. New legislators have a adjustment period when first taking office and having a high turnover rate limits what can be accomplished in legislative sessions. It should ultimately up to the residents of the districts to decide if their representative should keep their job or not. If the legislators are ineffective the citizens should respond by voting them out of office.
ReplyDeleteAfter careful consideration, there are good arguments for both sides in regards to whether or not there should be term limits, I have decided that term limits would ultimately be in the best interest for West Virginia politics. The few large ideas and points that make the argument strong as discussed by several of my classmates and the articles we read are that it helps prevent corruption, there will be more pressure to get things done and passed because of limit and it brings diversity and fresh.
ReplyDeleteOne of the biggest supporting statement for this argument is that the legislature allows for better representation in office. Situations whether that be economic and social change within districts and states often, term limits would bring fresh perspectives into office and allow for better representations. If a Legislator who is in office that plans to make a career out of politics; therefore, the same voting strategy and thinking mentality for however long the politician would stay in office.
Like other classmates stated, someone new could bring fresh ideas to the public. Nowadays there can be a generation gap between the older people in office and the younger public’s ideas and views. This would help the fact of regenerated ideas and views. By setting term limits we are steadily changing people in and out of office who have new ideas and have the present interests of the people in mind. Also, it would cut down on the power and influence that one candidate has, which goes along with a bigger amount of citizen views being represented.
With representation, it would cut down on the pressure factor for first time candidates. Some people decide not to run for office because if they did they would be going up against a long-time popular Legislator. While the new candidate could have a better agenda, they might not bother running because they think assume they will lose.
I believe the state of West Virginia would benefit if they put limits on term length, however it could also cause some issues that the state would need to address and adjust to. The issue that is of main concern when discussing term lengths is the limited amount of qualified candidates. However I do believe that eventually this issue could be adjusted to and that the limits on term length would help improve the state. For example term length would eliminate career politicians who seem to care more about their image then the well being of there district, which would improve the state as a whole. Also the limitation on term length would allow for new perspectives that then leads to change which is an essential part of government. Term limited elections would engage those who have intentions on whats best for their districts and discourage those who are just focused on re-election, which is an elimination of corruption in office. Overall term lengths create a lot more beneficial outcomes then having no set term length. For the state of West Virginia I believe the best way to go about setting a limit on term length is to allow 4 or 6 years of re-election time therefore it would continuously rotate who is in office but not so much where qualified candidates are an issue.
ReplyDeleteWhile I completely agree that West Virginia should without a doubt have term limits for legislators, I do not agree with the imposing of a limit for the amount of terms one serves. Like many of my colleagues above stated, experience is a very valuable asset in politics. If you set term limits then there is always an option for diversity as well as change, however, if a legislator is doing it right then why set a limit on how many times he/she may be elected? It is the citizen's job to vote on a legislator who is fit to serve, whether he is a former candidate or not. A democracy should give anybody the right to run for office, no matter how much or little experience they have under their belt. Many of my colleagues also noted that new problems arise everyday, and that no body can solve every problem. This is true, and so it is our job to choose who we deem fit to find solutions to these problems, no matter who it is.
ReplyDeleteI sincerely believe making a restriction on how many terms one can serve in the house and Senate is essential in upholding a fair and just government. After reviewing various publications, there is a wide belief that setting limitations helps balance our government. One specific article I read actually stated almost 80% of Americans believe there should be a limit on terms, and more specifically 82% felt there should be 3 terms over 6 terms allowed in the house. The biggest debate is on Senate terms. (http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/congressional-term-limits).
ReplyDeleteHaving reviewed a few more statistics, it only deepens my belief that allowing only a specific amount of terms cuts down on pork barreling and corruption. No matter how like a candidate can be, if they've held the maximum amount of years in office, they have to step aside and let someone else have a chance to provide the state with some good of their own.
If one person stays too long in office, they get comfortable, and therefore get sloppy with how things are run. It becomes more authoritarian and less democratic in the sense that there is one person running things for too long. That is exactly what we want to avoid. If we let every president we favored stay in power too long, they might as well be labeled a king. If we wanted that system of government we would have never broken away from England in the first place.
In conclusion, I absolutely support term limitation.
Like the rest of my classmates, I believe there should be term limits on the legislature in every state, including West Virginia. Imposing term limits would hinder legislators from making careers out of being in the legislature, prevent potential corruption (though I'm sure this isn't a big problem in a state like West Virginia), and help bring new ideas and faces into our state's politics, in-turn making people feel more connected to their government and, as stated by some above, prevent an age gap between the legislators and the majority of the population they're supposed to represent.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in a small state like West Virginia, it can be hard to find many people interested in being a part of the legislature, but this can be countered by setting the term limit relatively high. Though, if the legislature had term limits, one could argue that more people would be inclined to actually take interest in running for the legislature since they wouldn't be running against a veteran candidate who may have been in office for many years. In short, I believe term limits in the legislature are a good idea for any state to implement, as the pros heavily outweigh any arguable cons.
I really think you make a valid point Will when you say that imposing term limit would not allow these legislators from making a career out of being in legislature. I feel like it is not the kind of position where you can sit back, relax, and know that you have seniority so therefore you are more powerful. Imposing term limits would indeed bring in fresh faces and fresh ideas and make the people feel more connected to their government.
DeleteI feel that having term limits in place for West Virginia as well as every state would be the best way to go. If term limits were put in place it would help to bring in new and fresh ideas once the incumbent is forced out. While there may be some popular Governors and Senators among citizens, they are few and far between in most cases. If you allow someone to continuously run for the same position and they win every election, then they will tend to get too comfortable and stop attempting to create new legislation and focus on fixing issues. Term limits for the Presidency have worked, so I see no reason that it couldn't work for the states as well. A lot of times politicians, although not always, enter into politics to obtain a sense of power. Allowing them to potentially have a lifelong position could lead to the men and women in office thinking they have more power then they do. Also sometimes if popularity is the case for continuous victory in some districts no one will even run against the incumbent. This hurts the citizens who do not agree with the current official as they have no opportunity to even vote for someone they feel will best represent their view point. If a term limit were put in place then I feel it would make elected officials do more with the time they have. If they go in knowing that they only have a set number of years they can possibly serve, then it would force them to try and push their views quicker and harder as opposed to the lengthy dragged out process we see today. This would also limit seniority from being a contributing factor. If there were a term limit in place you wouldn't have someone who served for 25 years feeling they have more authority and power then a newly elected official. Ultimately I feel that putting a term limit in place is the best course of action in order to achieve the greatest outcome for this country moving forward.
ReplyDeleteThe debate among term limits is a difficult one, with both sides presenting good arguments. I, however, agree with the side against term limits. As a citizen in a state, you should have the ability to have a say in what goes on in your state government. Electing your own representative is the best way in which to do this. Well, what happens when the representative you like cannot run any more? You may get lucky enough to like one of the new candidates, but you may also end up simply voting for the person running within your party preference. To some people, this is okay because parties are supposed to share ideas and preferences, but this isn't always the case. Sometimes you vote for a representative because the person has done a good job in the past. Why fix something that's not broken? Sometimes, you vote for someone who has had a lot of experience within the legislature, but they can't get experience if they're forced to quit after a certain amount of time. There's also the fact that without term limits, we already have a way to get rid of unwanted representatives. We don't reelect them. This is an incentive to do well in legislature and if you do well, you should get reelected. If someone stays in for 15 years and starts to slack off, they'll lose the election and someone will take their place to do better. West Virginia should continue without term limits for these reasons. The citizens should be able to control the legislature and keep the people they want in there. They shouldn't be faced with the decision of choosing the lesser of two evils, which ends up with an evil in either direction. There's the argument that a certain party may end up with more power than the other, but if the citizens elect representatives that make up a majority of a party, then that's the way it should be. It allows for the citizens ideas to be engaged in state government.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I can see both sides of the argument for term limits are a good and bad idea for the state of West Virginia, or for any state. But if I had to choose a side for the state of West Virginia, I am going to agree with most of my classmates when they say it is a good thing for this state. I do not see anything wrong with term limits. It ultimately puts fresh faces and fresh ideas in legislative instead of the same old people and the same old values and beliefs for long periods of time. It might not happen as often as we think, but there are a lot of corrupt people who want to be a part of government, so having a limit on people who end up being not so good for office could be another benefit of having term limits. Maybe if these people know they have such a short amount of time in office, they will get done what needs to be done for the people and the state.
ReplyDeleteLike Cody Veltre mentioned above, maybe having limited time would make these elected officials do more with the time they are given.
I like how Will Thornton above mentioned that by having term limits it would prevent legislators from making careers out of being in legislature. In the link you gave us the “Citizens for Term Limits” article actually states that career politicians are not beneficial to the legislation. It does not mean that someone with more time and experience in a position can do a better job than someone who does not have that much time in office.
I feel that for West Virginia, it would be beneficial to have term limits. I mean, yes it is always nice to have an experienced politician on board, especially if he is well liked throughout the state, but if we didnt have term limits, we wouldnt have any fresh ideas, it be the same. This gives us citizens the chance to vote out those we deem are not qualifying our demands instead of putting up with it. I also believe that having term limits can help with upcomers getting into a political career. This goes hand in hand with having fresh ideas because lets say, John Smith who has been serving for the last 10 plus years, he is essentially making a career out of this and we the people will have to listen to his views on topics, but if we had a limit to say 8 years, we can keep rotating new people in to really bring about change, of which our country is seemingly built on. Also note that having term limits can create competitive elections and can help voter turnout rise instead of just rapidly decreasing. If we have legislators for life, i'm sorry but most people will likely not give a damn about what is going on especially if they do not like the job their doing, I'm not alone in this as my colleagues mostly agree with having term limits, it just seems to be the best bet for West Virginia or any state for that matter.
ReplyDeleteBoth sides of this debate have very vital points which has made this argument so controversial for many years. Although I agree with certain points against term limits, such as loss of experience, maturity and knowledge of the workings of the legislature, I believe that setting term limits have more positive aspects then negative ones.
ReplyDeleteFirst, term limits can restore the sense of rotation in public office, reestablishing the concept of citizen legislature. To elaborate, by setting term limits this abolishes ones temptation to remain in office as a lifetime career, far after accomplishing the goals they set out to complete. After being in office for a long period of time people will start to forget their responsibility as a politician and focus more on the career path and the power they hold. Term limits allow new members to join legislature with new ideas and who have more drive then those who have been in term for a long period of time.
Incumbency is a powerful election advantage given to anyone who holds a position in office. It has become almost impossible to unseat an incumbent legislature due to their name recognition, because voters are more comfortable electing someone who they are familiar with. But with term limits, this encourages more candidates to run and makes elections more competitive by increasing the voters choices. In areas with term limits there are higher rates of incumbency turnovers then areas without term limits. Again, by changing hands over time by limiting terms, this is a good way to allow for dynamic new solutions to be implemented in an always changing world.
There are many valid points for both sides on term limits. In my opinion, West Virginia does not need to impose these limitiations. I understand why people would agree that they should but if you have faith in who your citizens are voting for than you do not need to put limits on how long a legislature can be in office. If the citizens support a state legislature they should not be forced to not run again because they have used up their terms. I agree with many of my classmates when they say it is beneficial to have new and diverse legislatures but I think that should be up to the citizens and if they feel they are ready for someone new they can vote in that way. The longer a legislature is in office the more experience they gain which can only be beneficial to them in the future. I do not think a way to improve democracy in West Virginia would be to limit it. Democracy should give anyone the right to run and for as long as they choose to do so.
ReplyDeleteTerm limits are something that I have always agreed with, and before now, I really had not considered our state’s lack of them. After reading this assignment and reflecting for a moment, I had to determine if my stance was only due to the old incumbents that I tire of seeing on television election after election. I think that any office should have an expiration date, especially local government. Government suffers at the hands of those who abuse and drag out the power they have been given by the people. When you look at it at every level, those incumbents that stay in office forever and ever and get a little stale as the years pass. Legislation flourishes when new ideas and fresh faces come in with inspiration to work for their constituents. If we allow the same old politicians to serve as long as people will have them, we allow these offices to hold more power than they should. State legislatures are supposed to connect and communicate with the people in their hometowns and the surrounding regions, but it seems that the longer one stays in office, the less they work for those who actually vote for them. Another reason I have this stance is the corruption I have seen first hand in local government. Coming from an area in which long time politicians have corrupted the system, a term limit could help crack down on the abuse of power that can often be seen in our state, and across our nation, at every level of government. Term limits provide the people with a way to keep their elected officials in check, and gives other aspiring public servants the opportunity to share their ideas and do the work their constituents voted form them to do.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely a good argument to consider. People probably think that candidates who stay in office for many years become uninterested in the topics at hand and also become obsessed with money and power. I am sure this is the case for some candidates, but I also think some candidates do a very good job and should be allowed to continue in office. I do not think there should be limits on terms. I think that if people disagree with a candidate, then they should take some imitative and vote against them. I think setting limits is an unfair thing to do, especially if the candidate it affects has nothing but good intentions for the state. People should just be more involved in what is going on and if they don't like it then they should be more involved instead of setting limits on those trying to make a difference. However, there could be definite cons to not setting limits, as well.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of setting or abolishing term limits is very complex, this may explain why the United States is almost equally split in half regarding states that possess and oppose term limits. However, after reading and analyzing various sources of information, I have concluded that supporting term limits is in the best interest, especially for the state of West Virginia. With such a small, traditional-style population, it is more-so a given that incumbents will be reelected solely because of their popular name. I personally feel that citizens are more likely to reelect those who have been in power, probably because they feel as though they are trustworthy. Also, the majority of the population in West Virginia consists of older people who may be opposed to change or have a distaste in young, new members controlling their government. As stated in the articles and agreed upon by many classmates, keeping the same people in power for such long periods of time allows them to easily forget what their tasks are via serving their districts, and instead, focus on their own corruption of power. Term limits keeps the legislature fresh, with new ideas flowing in as times change in our growing country and states. However, on the flip side, I do believe that members of the legislature should be granted the ability to serve 2, 4-year consecutive terms rather than 2-year terms. This gives candidates time to act on their word and promote/enforce policies in which they were initially elected to do. Also, I found the comment regarding term limits in the legislature versus the term limits on presidency very thought-provoking. It is contradictory to say that term limits violate constitutional rights when they are indeed already imposed, and have been imposed in presidency.
ReplyDeleteI would have to full support term limits for the state of West Virginia. After reading both arguments for and against, I think the arguments for them outweigh those against. The state legislators are elected to serve and represent their constituents. They are not there to make a career out of it. This mind set of holding office as a source of income and self-interest is the opposite of democratic. Those that strive for public office strive for power. While West Virginia legislatures do not get paid enough, it is a stepping stone to run for office on the federal level. It is also a way to help those business elites ensure that policies benefit them and further their own gains. The longer these politicians stay in office the more connections they make and money they funnel. There are some who argue that it is the responsibility of the voter to elect the best candidate but many citizens are ill informed and party line vote. Restricting the number of terms a legislator can hold promotes those who seek office for the constituents who elected him/her. Like the argument for term limits states, it creates a desire to serve not a desire for power.
ReplyDeleteIt is my belief that the West Virginia state legislature should not impose term limits on its legislators. Term limits eliminate good politicians that are already in the legislature, reduce democracy, and strengthen the executive branch.
ReplyDeleteThe West Virginia legislature already has experienced members serving, and by putting in place term limits this would take that experience out of office. Experience is important in the state legislature because seniority plays a major role in all of the committees. The most senior members of the legislature serve as the chairs of these committees. Term limits would essentially limit seniority and there would not be a real strong basis to place someone as a committee chair. If term limits were to be put in place the state legislature would function in a completely different way than it does today.
Term limits also reduce democracy and voter’s choice. It is the voter’s right to be able to vote for the candidate that they see most fit for the job. It is unfair to limit this choice even further be taking some of the most qualified candidates off of the ballot. The voters also have the ability to vote a legislator out of office if he or she is not performing up to their standards. Term limits only take away the voter’s right to vote for who they think should be representing their district.
Term limits decrease the influence the legislative branch can have and only empowers the executive branch more. The U.S. government is based on checks and balances, and if term limits would be placed on state legislators then state governor would gain more influence and therefor more power. Lobbyists would also gain more influence than they already have. Due to term restrictions legislators would rely much more heavily on lobbyists for information, and this would only favor the lobbyists more.
If term limits were to be placed on West Virginia state legislators it would have a negative impact on our state’s government by reducing the amount of experience in the legislature, decreasing democracy and voter’s choice, and by further strengthening influence of the executive branch and lobbyists.
I strongly believe there should be term limits on our legislature for three key reasons. The first is that setting term limits would allow variety within our political decisions. If we had the same people in our legislature for a longer period of time, the decisions in which legislature makes would remain the same throughout the years which is not always a good thing. Times change, people change and so do political needs. Having the same person in legislature for an extended period of time would be a negative thing for that reason. The second key point is that having term limits allows fresh new faces and new ideas. This ties in with my first key point. With new ideas, our political structure will grow and become better for the people. We cannot run our legislature the same as we have for the past 100 years because times change and so do peoples opinions. We need to form our legislature based on the peoples needs and the hardships or struggles our country is going through. My third key point is that with more time, people gain more power. While we do want our legislature to have some power so they can apply our needs to the government and our country, we don't want them to become too powerful. For example, a teacher that receives tenure may abuse their power and not teach their students as well as a teacher that is still working for tenure. The same example applies to our legislature. If an official is in office for too long, they may abuse their power instead of working for the people. In conclusion, I believe it is very important we put restrictions on how long legislative terms should be.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that there should be term limits set for the West Virginia legislature. I think setting limits is a good idea because it allows the state to become diverse and not be run by the same person for twelve terms. There is an article written by ourgeneration.org/term-limits that I completely agree with; that says “term limits help break the cycle of corruption in Congress”. This article also discusses how it will increase voter participation and decrease the amount of power special interest groups have. I definitely agree with one of my fellow classmates Ryan Wilkinson on the setting term limits issue. I agree with what he said about politicians who have been in office for some time start to only be concerned about keeping their job and keep make their money, instead of doing the job at hand. Ryan also mentioned that setting term limits also brings in a fresher viewpoint on things and I couldn't agree more. I believe that West Virginia having these term limits will bring more diversity to the state and create more competition for future elections.
ReplyDeleteWith elections coming up next week, the debate over term limits has become extremely relevant to political science. I do agree with a majority of my classmates that term limits is a very difficult debate, however from what I have read I do not agree with the majority of the class that the state of West Virginia should impose them.
ReplyDeleteYes there are many valid reasons why term limits are beneficial. I believe that the argument that candidates who stay in D.C. for a long period of time may begin to disconnect from their citizens back home is a very good point. Also term limits probably do create significantly more competitive elections because name recognition for already in-office officials probably helps win elections. However, I strongly believe that our citizens have the ability to prevent all of this.
I believe that American citizens do not give themselves enough credit when it comes to electing legislators. Our system of democracy allows us to elect a candidate that we believe will benefit our state. If the candidate has done his/her job well, the citizens should re-elect him/her, and if the candidate has disappointed the citizens, a new one will be elected. This discredits any argument that legislators lose sight of their state when being in D.C. for a long time. Adding term limits suggests that candidates are unable to make informed decisions about the candidates they are voting for.
Although this is not a debate over term limits for Presidency, I believe that FDR can be used as a great example of why term limits should not be used. In my personal opinion he was one of our country's greatest presidents. After his death Thomas E. Dewey said that four terms "is the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed" and I disagree completely with that. He was a great president who helped millions of Americans get through the Great Depression and WWII. He was not a bad man who took advantage of our country and his position. Americans are not ignorant, we are well informed and are able to elect people who we see fit. This is why someone like FDR could be elected four times while other presidents only serve one term. Going back to state legislators, I believe that the citizens have the ability to see for themselves who is going to benefiting or harming their state, and from there decide who to elect/re-elect.
A state legislator has a lot of responsibilities, and in order to take care of them well they are required to be well informed. Legislators who are in office for a long time are able to learn all aspects of their job and learn how to do it well. The longer one is in office, the more informed they will become and the better they are able to make smart decisions for their state.
I can see pros and cons for both sides, so its tricky choosing what is best. A term limit can help keep corrupted politicians out, but I feel as though it doesn’t do a great job of that. I can see why term limits are viewed as unnecessary. Like the article from Cleveland.com said, “elections are natural term limits.”
ReplyDeleteI feel as though whether or not we enforce term limits, we cannot fully eliminate corruptions; that is because of lobbyist and PACS. Every election they will find someone to represent them, so while the face is new the politics are not. I believe that term limits can take away politicians that truly care about the people and their job. However, in some situations term limits would be very handy. I am from Arizona, and live in Maricopa County, which is the “stomping grounds” of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. I personally do not agree with methods and political views. While there are term limitations on the house and senate there are none for sheriff, which has lead to a lot of corruption and abuse of power by Sheriff Apraio and his “administration.”
Switching over to West Virginia, I believe there is a lot of needed reform within the legislation. I think that imposing term limits in West Virginia is a good idea because we need fresh faces that believe in change. West Virginia is changing; the state is losing their biggest revenue, coal. This is a time where politicians need to steer this state in a new direction. I think many currents legislators feel as though they have a permanent spot, so why bother listening to the people when they can listen to the lobbyist. If a term limit were enforced they would be forced to get things done because they would have a time limit to get things done. Removing some of these legislators that have held a seat for a long time can give someone new with new ideas to give this state the spark it may need to generate change.
I am aware of the benefits of term limits for state legislators. Limitations on congressional service help to identify and address corruption within these institutions and also helps promote voter participation by making the elections more competitive and meaningful. States with loose or non-existent term limits can often find themselves stuck with an incumbant that has firmly solidified his position and has lost his drive to improve conditions and appease to constituents' desires. Term limitations help facilitate necessary change and innovation within the legislation. Ultimately, it puts more power back in concerned constituents' hands. Voters have more control in electing candidates they really align with, rather than hopelessly battling steadfast legislative monopolizers.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that term limits should be placed on West Virginia legislators. However, I see pros and cons for both sides. If citizens are pleased with what a legislator does in office and they want to keep re-electing that individual, then I think they should be able to. However on the other side, I agree with my classmates who stated that a legislator may get lazy or even corrupt after a while. I think its important to have new people that can bring in new ideas. I think that for a lot of people having stability within a job will make that person comfortable, and maybe more willing to slack off a little. If there has to be new legislators after a certain amount of years then a new person may be fresh and eager to get things done. According to an article on washingtonpost.com a 2006 NCSL study of term limits found they had little impact on the diversity of chambers and increased the importance of nonpartisan staff and lobbyists. Overall, it's not such a clear but I think it's more beneficial to have term limits.
ReplyDeleteI think that West Virginia should put limits on the number of terms of years that a candidate can have. Term limits helps decrease corruption and increase new ideas. By having term limits politicians will have more drive and desire to do as much as they can while elected in order to win the next election. Also, it decreases the ability for a politician to gain too much power and influence.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are both negative and positive sides to putting a limit on the number of years or terms that candidates are allowed to have in West Virginia, I will have to agree with refraining from putting a limit on the number of terms that a candidate can run for. I do understand that citizens may feel as though this prevents new ideas from being brought to office, but if they really do not what to keep the present legislature in office, they can vote against them during elections. Putting a limit on terms puts a pressure on the politician and the constant change of whoever is in office is too inconsistent. How is a politician going to be able to accomplish what they promised citizens during their campaigning if they aren’t given a lot of time to do so? I know a lot of my classmates have pointed out that term limits would help prevent corruption, but realistically, there is always going to be corruption, if one political party isn’t doing something corrupt, another one is. There really isn’t a way to completely avoid it.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading both sides of the argument, I agree that West Virginia should have shorter term limits because it is very difficult to beat out incumbents, Congress would be able to gain better control of their staff, and Congressional service would be motivated by the desire to serve. Incumbents have more money from PACs and lobbyists than those who are new candidates as well as more name recognition. If this was eliminated then more people who were concerned with the issues in their area would run and have a better chance of actually gaining office. This would bring much needed change in the politics. Also, if West Virginia had a terms limit than the congress would be able to gain control over their staff because members would be more likely to read the provisions that they vote on verses just being told what it includes. Also term limits would get rid of the idea of making politics a career and decrease the amount of power that the politicians have.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading through several articles and the comments of my classmates, I believe that the state of West Virginia should indeed have term limits for a multitude of reasons. First, having a cap on how long a legislator could serve would eliminate the possibility of he/she making that position a life-long career. If a legislator is continually in Charleston, they will eventually lose touch with the district and people they represent. Second, creating term limits for legislators would force them to work faster towards achieving their political goals. If a candidate only has a certain timeframe to work with, he/she will be more determined to accomplish their agenda in the time they are given. By having term limits, it allows for a continuous rotation of fresh faces in the legislature. And with new faces allows new ideas, as well as bringing up new issues and debates relevant to the state. Furthermore, enacting term limits would lessen the seniority gap. This would allow newer legislators the confidence to speak up and let more voices be heard, which would be more beneficial for everyone. A classmate made a comment about how the President has term limits, so why shouldn't the legislators? I completely agree with them, and henceforth is why I believe West Virginia should have legislative term limits.
ReplyDeleteI believe that not just West Virginia but all states should have term limits. We as a state and as a nation can not move forward without new ideas and new people. Would we want the same president for a life term? This is a well known discussion between people and I think both sides agree that at one point or another people should have a limit on the amount of terms one can run for.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe West Virginia should impose term limits for legislators. I agree with Mr. Suddes first argument from the cleveland.com article in which he states elections serve as limits. If a legislator is doing a poor job or isn't representing his/her constituents, it is their duty to get to the polls and vote them out of office. Unlike a presidential election, there is no electoral college, so the voters' ballots actually count and they hold more power than the population does in a national election. On the other hand, if said legislator is doing a phenomenal job, and is strongly supported, it is unfair for them to be prohibited from running for re-election (a lifetime ban in some states). In a case like this, I believe the new candidates face an even tougher challenge in campaigning to replace a well-liked legislator as voters may have bias against them before they even know the candidates' names. Also, if a legislator is doing well and making progress, bringing in a brand new candidate with little experience and a different agenda could kill any momentum they had going.
ReplyDeleteSome classmates, as well as the "termlimits.com" piece, argue that incumbents' money and access to media is unfair. While I agree that money coming from lobbyists outside of the district is unfair, it is still up to the voters to do their homework and not be swayed by political attack ads. Ads that we've already learned do very little to sway voters in the first place. They also cite the advantage of name recognition. However, I believe that works both ways. If the incumbent is doing an awful job their name will be associated with that.
I don't feel this is a black and white issue, however. There are points and counterpoints that can be made from each side that are not wrong, just opinion. The issue I saw most classmates bring up was removing corruption. While term limits could help filter out corrupt politicians, so, too, could voters on election day. With term limits, though, the voters have no say when a decent, well-liked politician isn't allowed to run again. In other words, corruption can be weeded out whether there are limits or not, but great politicians are always weeded out with limits.
In my opinion, West Virginia would benefit greatly by instilling term limits. Incumbency, as discussed in class, holds an almost unparalleled power when involved with running for reelection, creating a difficulty for any challengers that, in many scenarios, makes the chance of winning dependent upon whether the incumbent angered enough voters to get him/herself kicked out of office. Assuming that a state's democracy works as it's supposed to, the voters will make the right decision as to whom they believe should be in office, it's not as if once a politician is term-limited outrage will occur and voting for who one believes is best will cease to exist. With this I draw a parallel to my home state of Pennsylvania and it's current situation with the race for state governor. After governor Ed Rendell was term-limited, the now current governor, Tom Corbett, ending up winning with the most republican votes in the state's history, contradictory to a trend of democratic wins earlier that year. As it is now time election time in Pennsylvania again, democratic Tom Wolf has been predicted to upset Corbett in the coming election. In Rendell becoming term-limited, it caused within the next couple of years the swing in Pennsylvania voters from a previously republican swaying state to a now quite clearly ready for change democratic backing. It is with this that I believe term-limits are important for local governments to remain moving towards the future.
ReplyDeleteAfter doing a little research, I think West Virginia should not have term limits based on a few things. West Virginia has a small, part-time legislature and in theory is working in our best interest. The idea that ta no term limit legislature in it for the money and fame does not apply in this situation when the average salary is around $20,000. According to a study by Carey, Niemi, & Powell (1998), term limits give more power to legislative staff. With only about 170 staff members in the West Virginia legislature, we could be potentially giving power to a small few. I am not in favor of giving power to people we do not elect. Bigger states with a professional legislature might consider term limits to ensure they are getting the best possible outcome in their legislature like I am trusting ours to do.
ReplyDeleteI believe that West Virginia should have term limits for several reasons. First, with out term limits the same person could get into office and make their decisions time and time again without any objection because they are they ones in power. After they win for the first time, is it exponentially easier for them to win again due to all the constituency advantages we have discussed in class and in POLS 102 as well. Also without term limits, although the public gets to have a vote for who they wish to be in office, these up and comers are unlikely to be able to match the power of the constituent with their campaigns leaving new competitors intimidated to run at all. Also there is no flow of new ideas and ways of solving problems from the new candidates because the same person is and has been holding office for a long time.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if the person is doing his or her job they way people expect then they should be reelected as long as they do so. Also rho some new blood is needed to help make positive changes. Maybe to make a new person in position it should be done so where they serve the last year's with the one who is already running in order to get a good idea of what to do?
ReplyDeleteAfter looking around and seeing some of the different arguments for each side, i think it's clear that West Virginia should with along all other states install term limits, and I think there are a good amount of people that would agree. To not have them leads me to believe that states are relying too heavily on traditionalistic political culture like we talked about at the beginning of the semester. The idea of keeping things the way they are suffocates any idea of change that would come on election day, and should there be any corruption there would be nothing done against it. Pretty clear cut if you ask me, at some point change is needed
ReplyDeleteI personally feel that term limits should be in place in West Virginia. Especially in a state such as this one. West Virginia is so stubborn and slow to change in everything it does it is ridiculous. Term limits would do much good for this state and help out our citizens who are hungry for political change. First they would stop so called political monopolies such as Robert C Byrd. That man basically stayed in office until he could not physically function anymore. Term limits would stop things like this and allow fresh faces to enter the political game and get their ideas out there. Having term limits would also put more power in the hands of the people. The shorter the term limits such as 4 years the more power the people have. This is because they could then put into office a new and popular leader that is the main choice of a the majority of the population. I like the following quote from the website supporting term limits.
ReplyDelete"As for experience we would be better off without some of it. What is needed is experience in the real world life experiences from new blood with fresh ideas."
This quote was responding the argument against term limits that say having them would disrupt experience and history. I agree with the quote completely; because it is not about keeping experience and history in office over and over year after year. It is about real world experience, and fresh new faces have real world experience in many different areas. In order to get their ideas and positions to work we to get them into office. Term limits allow for this and make it much easier.
Term limits are necessary in West Virginia for the same reason they are necessary around the country. Certain people in legislation abuse the system by thinking of it as a job and doing what is needed to keep their job instead of doing what is needed to be done for the good of their constituents. This happens at the local, state and national level.
ReplyDeleteAlso if the legislatures had term limits it would cause people to want to get things done quicker in office instead of beating around the bush and just saying they are working to get something done so they will get reelected. Term limits would also equal the playing field by allowing different age groups to be represented because their would be no more career politicians like Ted Kennedy and in West Virginia's case Robert Byrd.
In conclusion I fully believe in term limits but not super short term limits I believe you should be able to have up to 5 terms in the state legislatures and 4 in the national legislatures. That is surely enough time to get what needs to be done, done.
I feel the same as most of my classmates in regards to this topic. Term limits are important for West Virginia, as they are for all states. There are many instances of people voting for certain offices based on the fact that they know someone's name. While that is the fault of the voter, sometimes the country has to put rules into effect that help out these people.
ReplyDeleteWe have seen many situations in which senators or other public officials can be out of touch with today's world. There are many different technologies in the world we live in today. It isn't the same place it has been a decade ago. That is why 8 years is a perfect lifetime limit.
I don't think that there should be a consecutive term limit as long as they stay under the eight year limit. I also think that terms should be voted upon every two years. With states that have term limits, 8 seems to be the most popular number. If the president can only serve that many years, then why don't we put that into effect for all other offices, especially senate and the house.
The fact that so many states are not instilling term limits shows that they are relying on what we did in the past. That isn't necessarily a good thing.
I think West Virginia definitely needs to adopt term limits for the sake of the legislators and the people.
ReplyDeleteLegislators obviously like doing what they do and the ones that have been in office the longest have a lot of experience but for the sake of the people they should be limited to how many terms they can be in office. They could definitely abuse their power if they are in office too long by thinking well I've been in office for 8 years so if I do this everyone will have to be ok with it.
For their own well being I think there needs to be term limits. A lot of legislators might continue running because its what their city expects from them. Once you get old enough you want to retire and settle down, you don't want to have to feel pressure from your fellow citizens to keep running and you definitely do not want to have to deal with the criticism from them if you decide not to run.
Term limits will also encourage new candidates to run. Everyone needs a fair chance and most people probably don't even try to run because if they run against someone who has been in office for a long time they probably do not have a chance and its discouraging to them. Legislatures always need a fresh face so more competitive elections would be a good thing
States not adopting term limits almost makes them seem lazy and that they are afraid of change. Change is not always a bad thing and more states need to take a chance with it. States need new ideas and they need to stop relying on the past. Just because it worked in the past does not mean its the best thing to do now. Term limits need to be installed in West Virginia and many other states.