2. HEAR SOME ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF TERM LIMITS
"Incumbent candidates nearly always win elections. One person is able to occupy the same office indefinitely and the difficulty of defeating them undermines democracy."
The Argument: Incumbents are hard to defeat for a number of reasons: they have their entire term in which to raise money for their next campaign; their office gives them important political connections; and, as those who have seen the Eddie Murphy film The Distinguished Gentleman are aware, name recognition is a huge factor in elections. The more terms a politician serves in the same office, the more each of these factors skews the election. When reelection is virtually inevitable, the democratic process is undermined because ineffective politicians cannot be ousted and qualified potential challengers have little incentive to run against such established figures. Also, when the same people remain in power term after term, new ideas are not brought forward and government remains ideologically stagnant.
The Response: It is no surprise that incumbents usually win elections. After all, they were well liked enough to win the office in the first place. Additionally, people look for experience when choosing a candidate. If people think that new ideas are important, they will vote against the incumbent. However, there is no reason to deny them the option of reelecting someone who is doing a good job. Incumbents win most, although certainly not all, of the time, but that is simply because voters think that they are more qualified.
"Senior politicians who have served for many terms have too much power."
The Argument: Our legislature is designed to be made up of politicians of equal importance, but under the current system lawmakers who have served for a long time are able to dominate. This is true for a number of reasons. First, their experience gives them more political savvy. Second, more time spent in Washington allows them to establish many important connections. Additionally, the near-inevitability of reelection allows them to operate with little concern for the opinions of their constituencies. Most importantly, seniority determines who holds important positions like chairmanships of Congressional subcommittees. The problem with concentrating power in senior politicians is that while such inequality is often good for their constituencies - powerful congressmen can help ensure that a lot of federal funding goes into plans that help their district - it is often detrimental to the country as a whole. People reelect senior politicians because they will do a good job of bringing pork barrel spending to their home state, not necessarily because they agree with their beliefs about policy. The primary function of the Congress is to make major national laws, not allot funding to specific districts, but the lack of term limits gives voters an incentive to reelect senior politicians for specific regional interests rather than because they support what is good for the country as a whole.
The Response: It is not clear that term limits will solve this problem. Subcommittee heads will always have a lot of power, but term limits merely transfer this power to less experienced politicians, rather than limiting it. Furthermore, veteran politicians will continue to exist even with term limits: term limits will simply allow people to hold different offices subsequently rather than the same office for a long time.
