Submitted by Brian A. on Mon, 2007/01/15 - 10:08am.
I tried to make the question as simple as possible, but it's not easy because there are different pros and cons to the argument depending on which elective position you are debating.
Submitted by Les Jones on Mon, 2007/01/15 - 1:34pm.
Incumbency has its advantages, including rigging things so that you remain an incumbent.
So, yeah, I'm for term limits as long as they don't increase turnover to the point that half the people in government are too inexperienced to do their jobs. My idea of term limits is pretty generous - like 20-24 years - to stop the ridiculously long incumbencies without throwing out perfectly-good public servants.
At the Federal level, I'm more in favor of term limits (and shorter terms) for Senators (who face re-election every six years) than for Representatives (who face re-election every two years).
Submitted by Socialist With ... on Mon, 2007/01/15 - 2:29pm.
If you're unable to steal everything you need within two terms, you probably aren't competent to serve in the first place.
--Socialist With A Gold Card
"I'm a socialist with a gold card. I firmly believe we need a revolution; I'm just concerned that I won't be able to get good moisturizer afterwards." -- Brett Butler
Maybe you're mixing up the two Steve Halls, but the Steve Hall on city council was always limited by 2 terms.
Yes, but in fairness to The Dude this Steve Hall did run for County Mayor last time in addition to his two Council races. We've been seeing Steve Hall signs around for a l-o-n-g time.
My views on this have evolved. I used to think term limits did more harm than good, and I actually voted against them in 94 (or whenever the county referendum was).
However, recent experience on City Council has changed my mind somewhat. Term limits on Council definitely gave us a better Council.
So.. in general, I'm for them, at least for executive and legislative positions. I do think including the registrar of deeds, county clerk, etc. is a bit excessive. But then I don't really understand why these folks are elected anyway.
The length of service is another issue. I tend to think 3 terms would be better than two (for most 4 year legislative positions like Council and Commission), because it really takes one term to figure out what you're doing. Two terms for U.S. Senators (which is 12 years), and maybe 4 for U.S. Congress members (which is 8 years). Two four-year terms for executive positions, like Sheriff, Mayor, Governor.
I mean, how can the election the end all and be all when electing people but is somehow flawed when used to determine policy? Obviously, if elections are reasonable and just, then public policy decided by said elections is also reasonable and just.
I tried to make the question as simple as possible, but it's not easy because there are different pros and cons to the argument depending on which elective position you are debating.
Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.
I want to vote yes on B and C but not D.
Incumbency has its advantages, including rigging things so that you remain an incumbent.
So, yeah, I'm for term limits as long as they don't increase turnover to the point that half the people in government are too inexperienced to do their jobs. My idea of term limits is pretty generous - like 20-24 years - to stop the ridiculously long incumbencies without throwing out perfectly-good public servants.
At the Federal level, I'm more in favor of term limits (and shorter terms) for Senators (who face re-election every six years) than for Representatives (who face re-election every two years).
www.lesjones.com
If you're unable to steal everything you need within two terms, you probably aren't competent to serve in the first place.
--Socialist With A Gold Card
"I'm a socialist with a gold card. I firmly believe we need a revolution; I'm just concerned that I won't be able to get good moisturizer afterwards." -- Brett Butler
I support term limits because Steve Hall campaign signs littered all over SoKno is, well, not cool man.
Maybe you're mixing up the two Steve Halls, but the Steve Hall on city council was always limited by 2 terms.
The Steve Hall that's the Register of Deeds just hasn't realized yet that as of Friday, he too is limited to two terms.
Maybe you're mixing up the two Steve Halls, but the Steve Hall on city council was always limited by 2 terms.
Yes, but in fairness to The Dude this Steve Hall did run for County Mayor last time in addition to his two Council races. We've been seeing Steve Hall signs around for a l-o-n-g time.
My views on this have evolved. I used to think term limits did more harm than good, and I actually voted against them in 94 (or whenever the county referendum was).
However, recent experience on City Council has changed my mind somewhat. Term limits on Council definitely gave us a better Council.
So.. in general, I'm for them, at least for executive and legislative positions. I do think including the registrar of deeds, county clerk, etc. is a bit excessive. But then I don't really understand why these folks are elected anyway.
The length of service is another issue. I tend to think 3 terms would be better than two (for most 4 year legislative positions like Council and Commission), because it really takes one term to figure out what you're doing. Two terms for U.S. Senators (which is 12 years), and maybe 4 for U.S. Congress members (which is 8 years). Two four-year terms for executive positions, like Sheriff, Mayor, Governor.
I mean, how can the election the end all and be all when electing people but is somehow flawed when used to determine policy? Obviously, if elections are reasonable and just, then public policy decided by said elections is also reasonable and just.
CAFKIA
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
- William G. McAdoo
Post new comment