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, March 24.
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.
I can easily see both sides of the argument for why or why not term limits are a good idea for West Virginia or any state for that matter. However, I feel like theres nothing wrong with term limits. I truly agree that this approach would limit corruption. I mean over long periods of time, government officials eventually figure out loopholes and how to hide money. I'm not saying everyone who is in office will live a life of corruption but at the same time I don't see much of a reason for anyone to serve longer than terms adding up to 12 years. According to the Chart of States with Term Limits that Dr. Berch posted, a majority of the 15 states have an 8 year limit. This is plenty of time for a legislator to really make a difference, get name recognition and ultimately move up the ladder. We discussed in class that most legislators do the job to serve as a stepping stone to their careers anyhow. I also agree that it would keep the legislation more diverse and ultimately give everyone a chance. Some traditionalistic states may end up having the same people live an entire life in the House or Senate focussing on laws and bills just to maintain policies that may be outdated and/or irrelevant. I don't know if its just a common theme of legislation or not but based on the journal assignment we just completed, it seems like West Virginia could really benefit from some fresh brains. There was a ton of time wasted just by disagreement and amendments to proposed bills leading to a lot of the bills not even meeting the session deadline. I just feel like the state could benefit from some change. Term limits in my opinion ultimately allow for change and new development rather than keeping players on board that either do not help the cause or have done more than their share and need to move on.
ReplyDeleteI can understand why there are term limits. It gives other people a chance to serve as a state legislature. Maybe they have more to offer than the person who served before. I agree it brings diversity as well with all different minds. Also, new people can bring in fresh ideas, ones that the previous legislatures have not thought of before. It is always a good thing for change. Just because the state legislature was popular does not mean they should stay for unlimited amount of time because then it does not leave opportunity for any one else. For example, just because President Obama is well liked by everyone that does not mean he should be President for life. There should be someone else able to take his spot after his terms. Someone who can offer something different. Someone who can be the voice for other people who want their opinions/positions to be taken into action. Term limits simply give other people a chance to contribute and help with their ideas.
ReplyDeleteI think term limits have negative and positive effect.
ReplyDeleteWhen we limit legislator to four or what every it gives us a lot of positive effect,
we all know having new and different idea is very important especially if your idea will effect a lot of people future. we also can give more chance to other people to serve.
Every person has different idea about how to serve or how to solve the problem,we can call it diversity especially country like USA is important to have term of limitation because there are so many different people living in this country 'immigrant people' they need this change.
On the other hand with term limits we are losing the experience and knowledge that person have this is important too.
And also time limit will stop the legislator whether he/she is doing good job or doing bad job because it will limit it to two or four years.
ReplyDeleteI believe term limit also can prevent corruption , The person will feel more responsibility,
Deleteand also the power will be on the hand of people, not only one person who control the power for long time.
Everything for the most part has limits. For WV, having a term limit on legislative I feel would be for the most part a good thing as fellow classmates had said as well. With that, we'd still have those in office that were in for let's say eight consecutive years ideas, but if we have new people in legislature, they can always go off that idea and build upon it, making it even broader. They would also limit the possibility of corrupted people just because those little nooks and crannies, the new people wouldn't know how to manage unlike if there weren't term limits, they'd know how to play the game and all the secrets around things. One of the articles you posted mentioned how term limits which are called elections determining if you want that person to continue in office or not. It’s good to start fresh with elections after so long. Eight years is a long time, but as you’ve mentioned in class these people can build their way up and have that possible seniority if they continue going up in the legislative branch. And also, if we have term limits, maybe these people would focus on the citizens rather seeing this a power position like most people in government seem to be in there for because having that limited time, you’d hope that they would be motivated for what’s best for their state and with that, they’d receive name recognition and move on up to better help our state legislature.
ReplyDeleteI'm fairly neutral on the topic of whether or not there should be term limits. I agree with people who say it will reduce corruption among other things, but if there are no term limits, people can have time to find ways to get around the law because they have been around long enough to know how things work. Term limits would also be useful for WV because it would allow more people to bring their ideas to the table and add more diversity to the legislature. As for not having term limits, this could be useful because if there is an individual that does a lot of positive things and is well liked and trusted, they should be able to stay as long as they want and keep getting voted back in. Those people may also move up in the legislative branch, which would give other people an opportunity to join the legislature. Overall, I believe WV should have term limits to give more people a chance to participate, as well as adding variety and starting new every few years.
ReplyDeleteI, like another classmate has said, am very neutral on the topic. I can clearly see both sides of the argument but I feel like I am leaning more towards not having limits on the legislature terms. I think that, like the article stated, it takes away from the voters. They could feel like they have less power when it comes to re-election. Like, lets say that WV had a great candidate but his or her executive eight years has been completed. The voters might think that it is unfair that they are so happy with this candidate but can not do anything to keep them in power. And it goes the same vice versa. The the candidate might be doing terribly and the people do not like him or her, but they can not do anything because they are entitled to at least their four years. Also, I feel WV should not have term limits because when their term has been completed, they will need to start looking for a new job go through a period of being jobless because they have been so dedicated to being in the legislature. If they are doing well in their career in the government, why make them struggle to find something else? All in all, I feel that having term limits restricts the power of the voter and the people in WV may not appreciate that. Also, it allows for seniority and strong ideas to continue to grow. I think that it is a good idea to not have term limits in the state of West Virginia.
ReplyDeleteI can see both side of this issue when it comes to having term limits in the state of West Virginia. However, I do not believe the effect of having term limits or not having term limits would make a huge negative impact on West Virginia. Like already mentioned having term limits would definitely put a limit to corruption in government. However, on the other hand, not having term limits takes power away from the voters as they would feel they have less of an impact when reelection takes place. On the plus side, though, this would create a diverse legislature with shorter terms and newly minds being brought to the table with fresh ideas. On the contrary, like the article said this short terms results in ideas and plans not being accomplished and following through.
ReplyDeleteHaving a longer term would allow a candidate to actual make a difference as they would have the time to follow through with their plans of action. Like I already mentioned this longer term would conflict with having diversity in legislature along with fresh ideas being filtered through the legislature as new candidates are reelected. In the end, there are plenty pros and cons when it comes to have term limits or not having term limits. In the end, even though voters may not appreciate it, I believe not having term limits would be best for the state of West Virginia as one candidate would have the time in office to make a difference.
I can understand the arguments of both sides, as both have very valid points. However, the thing that strikes me the most is the fact that having term limits does seem to take away some of the democratic rights that we have built our country around. If we choose to elect a person to a certain position and want the person to stay for longer than their 8-year limit, we would no longer have that choice because of term limits, as the article "The case against legislative term limits: Thomas Suddes" points out. At the same time, having the same person in a particular seat can be harmful in that a sort of monopoly can be created it that person chooses to do so. As the article "Citizens for Term Limits: Answers to Most Common Negative Arguments" suggests, without term limits, people who have been in a particular seat for a long time amass great amounts of power and tend to use their seniority to their advantage. This can sometimes be disastrous to other states or even the country, all of whom have no say over whether or not this person retains their seat, since it is up to the voters of the seat holder's state. The article also combats the idea that with term limits we would not lose the knowledge and experience of long-time seat holders in places such as Congress. However, I'm not sure how much I agree with that. It would make sense that the longer a person is in a seat, the more they would know about it. So how useful would it be to take a person who has been in the seat for 8 years and then kick them out to bring in a new person who doesn't know the intricate workings of where they have just been placed? Especially when the voters of the state may have wanted the person to remain because of their expertise and knowledge? It's an extremely difficult topic to try and pick just one side on, but I think it would be the lesser of two evils for West Virginia to not take on term limits.
ReplyDeleteLike some of my classmates, I believe that having term limits would be a good thing for West Virginia. Being in the legislature should not be a lifelong career. Instead, it should be used as a stepping stone for their future endeavors. By having a term limits like Ohio, California, and a few other states, the people in the legislature would still have a chance to do the things they need to do to get name recognition for the next thing they plan to do. Ohio has a term limit of 8 years for the Senate and the House. California has a term limit of 12 years for the House and the Senate. Within 8-12 years, which ever a state chooses, a legislator should be able to make some kind of difference in the state. After a term of 8 or 12 years it is time to let someone else take the spot and bring new ideas to the table. If a state allows a legislator to be in office for an unlimited amount of time, there will never be much of a change. The focus will always be on the same old issues that may no longer be important for the state. By bringing in new people, the focus will be more on helping the people of the state and the issues that are relevant. I think it is more important to have people in the legislator that are focused on the wellbeing of the state, instead of being a career politician.
ReplyDeleteLike other members of the class have said, I do not see a problem with states having term limits. I think that they would benefit West Virginia’s legislature. I agree with other classmates that term limits reduce corruption. Without term limits it can be easy for a certain group who has a specific view to gain control and dominate the election. By having term limits, voters can have a variety of choices when voting. Without term limits, it is easy to go with what you know and reelect the same person over and over. When this happens, the same viewpoints are repeated for years. For a group that wants a change, it can be difficult to accomplish what they want with the same person in office for years. Due to that fact that only fifteen states have term limits, it is apparent that term limits are not very popular in state governments. Without term limits, it is easy for a governor to gain more control and earn trust from legislatures because the same people are in office over and over. Overall, I think that term limits would be a positive change for the state of West Virginia
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to term limits for the state of West Virginia I would have to lean more towards the for, then against. Term limits are a pretty basic idea and the idea to keep people circulating thought the legislative system allowing for new voices to step up and push for change. As said by Neil a lot of people actually just use these legislative positions as stepping stones for their careers so I can’t see incumbents being really against this idea. Term limits will allow for less corruption within the government bring in new people and having people stay on top of their game due to reelections. Strong candidates will be able to hold their position while the weaker ones will be voted out and that is a good thing for democracy. I am for term limits but I am against the amount of time and money spent on campaigning for their reelection. Personally I would enjoy hearing an incumbent announced he/she would cut down on campaigning to actually do their job.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the argument can be made for each side of this debate i personally believe that there should be no tern limits in the West Virginia legislature, or any state's legislature for that matter. The purpose of Democracy is so citizens can vote for the one that they feel would represent them the best, and if the incumbent is doing a good job then why should they be limited by a rule? The best candidate should win the position and deserve the position, not win by default because of term limits. So I agree completely with Thomas Sueddes first point against term limits. Which is completely the basis of my argument. Although electing new officials may bring new ideas to the table as some of my classmates have said above, these ideas should be elected because they are better than the incumbents.
ReplyDeletethe term limit is both a good and a bad thing when it comes to the legislature, Many of the ones that have served in the legislature for multiple terms may lack new ideas and diversity that may be brought to help the people of the state, it may also help move some bills sooner than expected. On the other hand serving for more than one term on the legislature might be able to continue their work and vote on bills that may be viewed as controversial to others. Serving on the state legislature should allow others to move on with their careers and allow others to serve on the legislature to diversify it more.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that I believe there should be term limits for West Virginian legislators. There are term limits on a lot of things and with one being on the President, I fell like other government offices should have them as well. With voting in new members with term limits I believe that it can lower corruption, lower members having to much control, bring in new ideas, and makes it so people can not make careers out of being a election official. I can also see the negative side of having term limits like members lacking experience, and if the person is doing a really good job and people trust them, they may not want them to have to leave. From the chart that was provided above, I think it is good that some states have enforced term limits. Most of them are 6-12 years and I feel that is enough time for members. The article that was against term limits brought up six important reasons from Ohio. He believed that it made elitist, he brought up the "leapfrog" argument, and that it strengthens the executive branch and weakens the legislative branch. For the article that favors term limits, it just made false statements about term limits true. Like that just because members do not have a lot of experience does not mean that they are not good.Overall I have to stay that it would be a good idea for West Virginia to set term limits for legislators.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of whether or not legislative term limits should be implemented in West Virginia, I am otherwise mutual to both sides of the arguments. I can see the pros and cons to either decision but if I would have to lean towards one side I would have to vote against implementing them in our state. By implementing term limits to the Legislative office it would hurt any long term plans that a current member of the Legislature has worked on and implemented for the past year since they would not hold the position to keep the plan going. Also, if a new person takes office they probably would not want to carry the old plan out but rather start their own plan of action. By allowing someone to hold office for a longer term they would be able to make noticeable change throughout the state and work on long term goals instead of having to start over each time. On the other side not having term limits causes a huge lack of diversity within the Legislature since the same people will hold their position for say a lifetime and no new ideas or personalities would be able to take office until after the fact. As I stated earlier in my post there are a handful of pros and cons for or against implementing term limits for office making it a difficult decision to agree upon because both sides have strong arguments. In the end I believe that not implementing term limits in West Virginia would be the best option since the person who is currently holding a position would have a chance to prove themselves and truly work to making a difference in our state.
ReplyDeleteI believe that having term limits would be a good thing for West Virginia because with term limits I believe that it can lower corruption, lower member control and bring in new ideas. I can also see the negative side of having term limits because members will be voted in that lack experience and the power to get things accomplished because they are new. The legislation could be used as a stepping stone for future endeavors and the people in the legislature would still have a chance to do the things they need to do to get name recognition so they have a leg to stand on when they run for a higher position. Within 8-12 years, which ever a state chooses, a legislator should be able to make some kind of difference in the state and gain the power they need to run for another office. After a term of 8 or 12 years it is time to let someone else take the spot and bring new ideas to the table. If a state allows a legislator to be in office for an unlimited amount of time, there will never be much of a change. The focus will always be on the same old issues that may no longer be important for the state. By bringing in new people, the focus will be more on helping the people of the state and the issues that really need looked at and dealt with. I think it is more important to have people in the legislator that are focused on the well being of the state and not being there just so they can gain money and power.
ReplyDeleteFor West Virginia having a term limit would produce a sense of competition that would make who ever that is in office to do a better job. If the legislator did a good job then they would be voted back in to office. In the article by Suddes I disagree with his point on Reason #6 that stated that term limits imply that voters are too stupid to accurately evaluate the candidates. By having a limited term it would put the candidates under pressure to work harder and therefore less corruption to occur. I agree with Rob Moseley point on limited term allows for change then just keeping the same old people there because they would get too comfortable and would lose their sense of competition.
ReplyDeleteThe debate over term limits can be tricky to navigate. Personally, I can easily see the justification of both sides. A term limit can help provide fluidity in the legislature, as well as ensuring differentiating opinions after almost every election season. However, I can see why term limits can be deemed unnecessary. I like how the article from Cleveland.com put it: elections are natural term limits. However, countering arguments say that due to PACS, lobbying and corruption through the government – the bad guys can easily stay in power for as long as the ones they’re appeasing seem fit.
ReplyDeleteThere are several arguments surrounding the effect on term limits and minorities/women. From what I’ve gathered via research, there is a small differentiation between states that have the imposition of term limits versus those who do not in regards to voting in a women/minority into the legislature. The basis behind this reasoning is that a term limit does not ensure that the voters are ready for radical change. For example, if they were content with their current legislator – they are more likely to vote for someone who mirrors that individual.
However, in the case of West Virginia I do not believe that to be the case. After doing our legislative journals, I do think a change in legislature is needed. If West Virginia continues to be last place in a variety of rankings, a spark must be generated. I think that imposing term limits in the state of West Virginia is a good idea. With such short session times, an imposition of term limits can light a fire underneath the legislators to use the time effectively. I’m afraid that a good amount of current WV legislators think, “There’s always next year.” If there were a term limit imposition, that ideology would cease to exist. Many of you are saying that a term limit is not necessary for WV in order for our politicians to make an impact, however I disagree in the sense I think a quick change is what this state needs. An impeding deadline can help accomplish things more efficiently within West Virginia’s state legislature.
- Kelsey Montgomery
There are 15 states, approximately 1/3 of the nation, that have term limits for legislators. Professor Berch provided insightful articles and points to show us there are positive and negative points to term limits. After taking all of this into consideration and admitting there are, as with every disputable topic, pros and cons to this issue, I believe that the state of West Virginia should not implement term limits within the legislature.
DeleteMy classmates have sited some very good points in favor of term limits in the state, and I especially agree with Kelsey Montgomery’s points: West Virginia does need a wake up call. It's undeniable. Yes, I think some legislators would use their limited time effectively for positive change, but I think the majority of them would either become puppets to industry and money (influenced more easily because they know the have an upcoming expiration date) or use the position as a step to something more, whether it be mayor, Senator, or another position of power. I believe they wouldn't take their position seriously if they knew there was not a chance to improve.
Every state in the nation has rules and policies for its legislators. Even though there may not cap on term limits, as with the majority of the nation, there are still policies and regulations each legislator must abide to in order to hold his or her position. But an “impending deadline” would most likely cause these legislators to be more apathetic in their policies. If a bill failed, they wouldn’t have the opportunity to rebuild or try again.
Take Robert C Byrd for example, he did a lot of great things for the state as an elected official for a very long time. Don’t get me wrong, Robert C. Byrd wasn’t perfect. But one cannot deny the significant impact he had on the state and represented it at a national level. More than three dozen roads, campus buildings, research centers, business parks and other entities survive his name- he made those happen. Byrd, who died at age 92, never stopped his efforts to support and defend West Virginia. He was a fabulous advocate for change. He is remembered for his strong connection with the state’s people. Would he have had such a significant effect, or even be remembered, if he had a limit on his term? Read this article from the Charleston Gazette if you need a fresh up of Byrd's history: http://www.wvgazette.com/byrd/201106260087?page=2&build=cache
West Virginia is heavily influenced by industry and big business. That will not change by employing a term limit for lawmakers- because the next legislator will have to overcome corruption and power as well. I think the citizens of West Virginia need to push their representatives for change. If we don't like what they're doing- we don't have to vote for them again. It's an education and involvement issue of West Virginia's people. It will take time- as with anything. But I think we have to stop blaming those we vote into office and start educating ourselves first.
Term limits give more citizens the opportunity to become citizen-legislators and more actively participate in their government, bringing in “new blood,” new ideas, and diversity into government. Keeping legislators in office for extended or unlimited periods of time perpetuates the sometimes outdated or traditional laws in a state that have outlived their usefulness. Term limits allow the state to change, adapt, and grow, while preventing the accumulation of power among the few, limiting the possibility of the creation of a coalition or a dynasty, and deterring corruption. Those who are able to remain in office for an unlimited period of time may not properly represent the constituents who elected them. They may run the risk of being influenced by special interest groups because lobbyists have longer periods of time to express their views, build relationships with them, and influence their decisions. This can cause them to support legislation that perhaps is not in the best interests of their constituents. Term limits protect legislators and constituents from unnecessary influence and puts an end to career politicians who do what they have to do to remain in office, whether it benefits their constituents and their state or not. The absence of term limits has the potential to create a “permanent political class that can skirt rules and laws that apply to the rest of us” (http://www.democracychronicles.com/should-there-be-congressional-term-limits/).
ReplyDeleteWhile term limits give more citizens the opportunity to participate in their government, term limits can also create legislators that lack expertise and experience, make government more inefficient as new legislators constantly “learn the ropes,” and cause government instability and a lack of legislative continuity, resulting from high, legislative turnover. Newcomers who lack experience, undoubtedly, will make the same mistakes other legislators have made in the past and can waste valuable time “experimenting” with the legislative process and can impede a smoother, legislative process, one that is efficient and more quickly gets things done. A vast number of new legislators may bring diversity and new ideas, but experienced legislators who understand the workings of their state and the needs of their constituents and are more invested in the preservation of the state’s ideals and values are valuable to the legislative process. Additionally, as responsible citizens, we want the most qualified, successful, and effective people to pursue political office. If there are term limits, especially short ones, one could argue what is the incentive for those kinds of people to become legislators, knowing they will definitely be out of office in some specified period of time? Term limits, therefore, may be a disincentive to attracting some qualified candidates to the legislative process. This isn’t true for all. As we discussed in class, many legislators use their time in the legislature as a “stepping stone” in their careers, and they expect to be voted out at some point, continuing their careers elsewhere. So, in some respects, term limits are perhaps unnecessary. Additionally, short, term limits can prevent legislators, even qualified ones, from getting much done, as they may feel compelled to primarily focus on one particular issue because of time constraints. Term limits mean a qualified candidate cannot run for office simply because s/he is prohibited from running because of term limits. It also means a citizen cannot vote for a particular person simply because s/he is prohibited from running because of term limits, even if that citizen believes that person is the best person for the job.
I agree with Valarie Bennett because I can see both sides of the argument. I realize that there are pros and cons for both sides of the term limit system. I think that if West Virginia were to have term limits this could be beneficial because term limits will be able to decrease corruption and member control. Being on the other side of the argument, this could be negative because members can be voted and they might have a small amount of experience. By term limits, there is a great loss of experience and knowledge when working for congress; I believe that would negatively affect the way that the state is run. On the other hand the staff people would gain control and would be able to help more. All together I think this would be a good idea for West Virginia to implement this and set term limits.
ReplyDeleteBoth sides of this argument are agreeable however feel that there are positives and negatives to term limits. However I feel that term limits are a good thing. This gives other the opportunity to come forward and give someone else a chance to share their ideas and philosophies. By bringing in new people, fresh and new ideas are brought to the office giving people a different perspective on different issues. By allowing someone to stay in office for an extended amount of time without a time limit makes people feel too comfortable and would not try as hard to get things done. For example, “Term Limits” article states, “A term-limited Congress could get the nation's business accomplished in a fraction of the time that it takes now, with all the posturing, posing, ego trips and headline-grabbing. And a term-limited Congress could streamline all the procedures.” This is why I feel that having term limits would be a good thing because it would force people to get the job done faster. I feel that legislative term limits in West Virginia is a good thing. The only reason I agree with having term limits is because I feel by doing this it will allow new ideas to come about. Although I can see why someone would think term limits were a bad thing, I feel that having a cycle of different people allows for a less corrupt legislative office and increase the diversity in the legislature. Therefore, I feel that West Virginia should have term limits because it allows a more diverse legislature, less corruption, fresh ideas, and people that will get the job done.
ReplyDeleteI understand the term limits and I do believe that WV should implement this. With the incumbents in office now, there would be some disagreement with the new people coming in. With the people in office for that long they are probably extremely stubborn and some of them won't be open to new ideas. This would bring a completely different perspective on how things should be run around the state. There are obviously pros and cons to this, but in the long run new ideas and diversity throughout the legislator would be great.Overall, other people should be able to spread their knowledge and share their fresh ideas. This would limit corruption like Morgan spoke of above, and expand the horizons of what our state has to offer.
ReplyDeleteI believe that West Virginia would benefit from term limits because it would limit the "war-chest" that incumbents would be able to procure. I believe that this is especially true in West Virginia because long term politicians are able to meet and accept campaign contributions from lobbyists and PAC's. The career politicians that run our state have a monopoly in state politics because they are able to raise more money than any challenger in the state. I do not blame the specific politicians for accepting these contributions, but I do question the system, in which we expect our representatives to stay neutral after they get wined and dined by lobbyists representing the social elite in our state, mainly coal and natural gas companies. Just like Ms. Mastromonaco stated above, bring in "new blood" would only create more opportunity for people in the state that really care about serving for the sake of serving the public good. These career politicians are often out of touch with today's ever-changing society and West Virginia needs more diversity and new ideas to combat the issues of poverty, lack of education and political corruption. The disadvantages of any challenger to a current representative in the state are too much to overcome, the way our system is now. By creating term limits in the state, we would level the playing field and give someone with fresh thoughts and ideas a chance at making our state a better place.
ReplyDeleteAlthough good points have been made on behalf of both sides in the previous comments and in the articles, in my opinion I think it would be overall beneficial for West Virginia to switch to having terms limits. The first article made some good points by saying it was taking away the opportunity for good legislators to stay in office and ones who may not be so good to be elected, and pointing out that term limits could make the legislator weaker. Although these are good points overall I think the opinions in the first article were mostly just extreme and the argument for term limits was more valid. Although it can cause good legislators to lose the opportunity to be reelected, it gives the opportunity for fresh, new ideas to come in. It will also allow for less corruption and prevent people from thinking they have a say over others, as some of my classmates have discussed previously. Also those who are considered good legislators can have the opportunity to use it as a stepping stone and try to move up when the term is over. As discussed in class West Virginia has a very high turnover rate when it comes to legislators so maybe a change in terms could help better that. Also the control the voters have would not change because either way the legislators still have to be elected into office and if a voter preferred a certain legislator they can vote for one who supports the same ideas and issues. Overall I think term limits would help more than harm West Virginia's legislature.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not think a term limit is necessary for the state of West Virginia. If voters believe that certain person is representing them well then why should that be changed, they did their job correctly and should be able to fulfill their job until they lose election. I feel there should be an age limit on it though, people just get too old and can no longer complete the job up to the best of their ability. Robert C. Byrd, is a good example of that. By the end of his time as a senator his office was most likely handling most of his daily plans. They should set an age cap from 75-80 somewhere in that range. You have to be a certain age to be a Senator or in the House, so why not limit the maximum age. Also. with term limits you add in people with less experience into congress. I believe experience is something very needed in the house, you have more power and people trust your opinion. Applying term limits subliminally states our voters are too ignorant to pick the best candidate for the job. If someone is a really good legislator then why remove them from their seat? They put in all of their hard work for so many years, and then they should just have to stand down from their position? People should not be punished for doing their job correctly. It may lower corruption, but you're the one voting for the candidate to be elected.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of term limits intimates incumbents who are in office and who have seniority. Based upon the information that was given to us in class, to read concerning whether or not West Virginia should implement term limits I have to say no. West Virginia should not implement term limits. I would propose that committee chairs who are elected need to rotate to other committees in order to give a fresh outlook on the committee and the state of West Virginia. Also I would limit access of lobbyist have on lawmakers. The whole reason why term limits should be imposed is the concern of corruption and influence in state and federal legislatures. I am concerned in the states where that traditionalist cultures have term limits there seems to be a stagnate system of poor education, health care, and service industry jobs are the norm. Term limits do not and have not changed this culture. Corruption will be there in the states whether or not there are term limits. The individualistic culture already has the highest level of corruption and if term limits were imposed on these states the cost of running for election and winning in these states will go up and even more corruption will thrive. The moralistic culture where people are expected to participant and even run for office themselves would be the only area of the country where term limits would seem to work. Implementing term limits here where corruption is not tolerated and people who have been convicted of corruption are shunned and ostracized. Where action is needed is on how lobbyists have access to law makers. If a proposed law has negative weight on the interests of these lobbyists (i.e. affordable health care law, banking reform, and stimulus plan) money will be raised to oust the law makers who voted against the lobbyists interests. The 2010 election is perfect example where lobbyist raised money to boot the lawmakers who voted in favor of the above laws. Term limits would not solve any of these problems only minimizing lobbyist influences on law makers will eliminate corruption and have allow for fresh ideas in the legislative process.
ReplyDeleteWest Virginia has term limits on say how many times you can you run for the House then you would purse running for the senate and so on... If a person loves being elected governing that person will find a way to do do so.. Where there is a will there is a way...
DeleteThere are valid arguments on each side of the debate regarding term limits, and many of my classmates don't seem to be leaning much one way or the other. After reading arguments and counterarguments for both sides of the discussion, I think term limits are appropriate in more states than others. States such as California and New York where legislators make a substantial amount of money serving in the legislature should have term limits. It seems as though corruption and personal gain are more likely to occur when more money and opportunity for upward mobility is at stake at re-election. As Professor Berch mentioned in lecture, these states are typically a stepping stone to higher office as opposed to many other states. According to the chart provided by Professor Berch, the majority of the limits were between 6-8 years. I feel these term limits are necessary in states such as these to prevent too much of a candidate's political agenda resulting in desire for personal gain rather than bettering the state. However, I believe term limits in West Virginia are not necessary, but also not totally wrong. West Virginia legislators earn a salary on the lower end of the spectrum, which I believe plays a key role in a candidate's political desires. Also, legislators in West Virginia do not typically hold office for an opportunity at a higher end level of government. For these main reasons, I feel as though West Virginia legislators are more inclined to run for office for the betterment of the state and do not need term limits to eliminate corruption. In an article on the international debate education association, it was reasonably argued that "there is nothing wrong with career politicians as they obey the will of their people and accurately represent the desires of their constituents." As this is could be the case for many politicians, I especially believe so in the states similar to and including West Virginia.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't a clear or good point whether it is good or bad for West Virginia. There are certain pros and cons to view on both sides of the argument.
ReplyDeletePros to term limits are:
- It would discourage corruption because with less time in office, they wouldn't have time to influence their position well enough.
- Money is a major factor in politics and incumbents have a lot of it. This is not a good thing because they can't relate to the average problems of a citizen.
- With little time in office, constituents/representatives would have to live by their rules after their office terms.
Cons to term limits are:
- Knowledge and experience would be wasted because those who have experience and contacts can make things happen faster than newcomers who have to familiarize or foster good relationships.
- Term limits promotes inequality amongst other long-term constituents/representatives. The long-term constituents would feel they have more power since they have been there for a long time.
Though i will vote for a term limit because there would be constant change to benefit the interest of the citizens. This would also shed light to problems that recently occur in the society.
I have mixed opinions and views when it comes to term limits. Many term limits are cash solvent for the state. While other states like Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland and Montana are among some of the states that do have not have term limits. Many states like these have local politicians running for office for the main reason of only making it into congress. They are less concerned about helping the residence and more concerned about their status. By having term limits States are not set in their ways. It allows a new fresh outlook on legislative bills, budgets and many other things. It also allows more politicians who care about their state to attempt to make a difference or to change things they do not like and be able to address these issues. In West Virginia the House of Delegates has 58 members and are re-elected every two years. Also the speaker is the presiding officer, this person is the third ranking constitutional officer. There is also a bicameral Legislature in West Virginia made up of 134 members, this is 34 senators and 100 Delegates. These senators and delegates are all part time citizen lawmakers and are elected by the people. By being part time citizens they know first-hand what residents are going through and can understand how these people feel about various issues.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I will have to agree with the minority of my fellow classmates in saying that I do not believe that there is a right or wrong answer here. Term limits offer both beneficial and detrimental effects. Term limits can allow for a fresh legislature to come in with new ideas. They can allow for more competition and thus, more hard-working legislators. The fear of losing re-elections can also lead to legislators to be more deeply invested in those they represent
ReplyDeleteHowever, term limits also cause legislators to "play it safe." This implies that the constant fear of being replaced will cause legislators to avoid controversial actions. It is this reasoning that is used to justify the life-term of Supreme Court Justices.
Like I said, there is no right or wrong answer for this question. If I had to choose a side, I suppose I would choose to have term limits.
Arguably the best way of determining whether or not term limits should be used in West Virginia is to examine empirical evidence. The basic arguments for term limits are things such as they reduce corruption, give new people opportunities, and things of that nature. Arguments against term limits are things such a taking away voter choice as discussed in the opening question, but what does actual empirical evidence suggest? The Center for American Women and Politics released an empirical article citing data from 1998 and 2000 elections. The theory was perhaps term limits allowed more women to receive seats in the legislature. The evidence, however showed no such correlation. The evidence did show that incumbent members have a lot higher chance of getting reelected, and for that reason I feel that term limits in West Virginia would be a good thing. Incumbent members already have name notoriety and tools that first time runners do not have access to, making it almost impossible for them to get elected. So while term limits might not have a direct correlation on women and seats in the legislature, they do have a direct affect on who has a the best shot of winning. It is imperative that government constantly be searching for new ideas and solutions to problems, and having new members elected to the legislature can help. That is why I feel that term limits are a good idea for West Virginia and should be a countrywide principle.
ReplyDeleteTerm limits would improve the West Virginia State Legislature. Career politicians are harmful to society, and term limits prevent career politicians. Thus, term limits are in the best interest of governments.
ReplyDeleteAs stated above in the attached links and blog posts, incumbents often win reelection off name recognition alone. Citizens often do not vote for them based on their policy but rather simply because they know who they are. By creating term limits, name recognition voting would be severely hindered. Instead, voters would have to make informed decisions on what candidate they support. Hence, term limits do not damage Democracy like critics suggest, rather they improve it by forcing the population to become more informed.
Furthermore, career politicians become out-of-touch because their name wins them reelections, not their policies. Term limits would decrease the professionalism in the state legislature, but this is not necessarily a concern. The unprofessionalism would most likely make it harder to pass bills which would serve as a check on bills. Only really good legislation, bills with a wide range of support, would get passed. Also, pork-barrel spending would probably shrink thanks to term limits.
Lastly, the Cleveland article posted claims lobbyists would gain power/influence thanks to term limits. Ultimately though, what gives lobbyists power is that politicians are making deals with them and establishing crony capitalism. Restricting the politicians' power would also restrict the lobbyists' power and limit the agreements made between them.
-- Derek Hunter
You make fair points about crony capitalism and the corporatist system. However term limits are not the solution to this problem. The fact that citizens vote based on name recognition is the true problem. The people need to take responsibility for their own government. Laziness and lack of voter turnout are the bigger problems. Term limits have been shown only to decrease voter turnout.
DeleteIncreasing the citizenry's awareness of the issues is the true solution to this problem. Term limits are not going to force anyone to become more informed. They will vote based on party lines or not vote at all. While career politicians can be a problem, the solutions is have voters actually know what they are voting on. Not enforcing arbitrary limits that do in fact harm the democratic system.
I think that West Virginia should have term limits, because after reading the related articles it seems to me this is the best idea. Term limits lower corruption and stop the same people from being elected year after year. It would be the same thing if the president was able to be elected for ever with no term limits. people would think this wasn't fair even though they get re-elected because people think they are doing there job. I read that people who oppose term limits say that you are taking away there freedom of choosing who they want to represent them , but what about the people who are not being represented, if the candidate with the most money and powerful people behind them keep winning then the minority voters would stop. also a classmate stated that there shouldn't be a term limit but they should impose an age limit. This is not a good idea because not only is it discrimination but It is also not a good way of judging if someone can do a job or not. Just because someone is younger doesn't mean that they are more capable of doing a better job than someone. Discriminating against people for there age is worse and would be worse for the state than saying you can only run for "x" amount of years. I didn't originally agree with term limits but after reading these comments and the given articles it is the best way to go about things, because It will also reduce corruption. no matter what the salary is for the position corruption can occur so for the comments regarding corruption to be higher in NY or California I do not think that is accurate. if anything one could make the argument it may be higher in smaller states because I think smaller towns are more corrupt than bigger cities.
ReplyDeleteAs noted in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, the idea of term limits goes as far back as the American Revolution and incorporation into the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution however, did not include term limits. Of course that was a different time. As written by James Young in The Washington Community, 1800-1828, the tendency to look with mistrust upon political power was so ingrained into American culture that even the officeholders themselves perceived their occupations in a disparaging light. Term limits kind of took care of themselves.While times are different today and there is less turnover of office holders, my view however, is more in line with Elizabeth Hoffman when she states that term limits seems to take away the democratic rights of voters to vote for whomever they want. Also, if you take away the word term out of term limits, that's exactly what you will have...limits. It seems to me that if there is a worry that a particular politician is corrupt or not acting in the best interest of his or her constituents then it is within the power of individual voters not to reelect that person. Rather than limiting voters right to vote for the person they want by instituting term limits, there should be intensive efforts to ensure that citizens are informed on the issues and of each office holder's stand on the issues. Efforts should also be made to hold the press accountable for accurate and honest reporting. Combined, these efforts could go a long way in combatting voter apathy. This, in turn, could result in the type of actions those proposing term limits are looking for but do so without limiting the rights of voters to vote for the candidate of their choose. When first suggesting term limits in West Virginia it may seem like a good idea, however when looking closer, restrictions aren't what West Virginia needs to succeed. I also disagree with Alan, that smaller towns are more corrupt than bigger cities. The bigger cities usually have their representative in office for longer periods of time as well. West Virginia wouldn't be considered large or small, so the term limits arguments based on size of the state doesn't apply as much here. Why change it now? Those in office that have seniority have done well in their current positions, so leaving it the way it is now would be best for West Virginia.
ReplyDeleteI believe West Virginia should have have term limits.I think all states should have to have term limits.I think it would provide more stability for our state legislature. In my opinion it is not fair for people to be able to keep running for the same position term after term. If West Virginia had term limits it would give others a chance to run for a particular office. Plus I think it is not good for the state to have the same people being elected. We need new people to be elected for change to keep happening in the state and to make the state stronger. Having term limits would lower corruption and would give others a chance to be elected and give a positive change to West Virginia.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the articles and doing some research, I personally believe that having legislative term limits would be a good idea for West Virginia. Term limits could only improve the West Virginia State Legislature by limiting the possibility of prolonged corruption or those who stay longer than needed or wanted. It could also give others the opportunity to participate in the government and give out fresh ideas or thoughts. Too many people get to stay just by their name and not necessarily whether they could actually make a positive difference or bring something new to the table. Term limits allows others to come in and make a difference along with some diversity. Besides, a lot of legislators can use their experience to further their career and to move up. Eight years is plenty of time to make a difference and to move on. It also allows for people to see the negatives and positives and how to act upon those, and as we have mentioned in class, it is really just a good career move in order to gain recognition and move to a higher position. After reading the article posted about the negatives of term limits, I can see how people can be against it. In the article it mentions how if you don't like how your legislator did, you could easily just not vote for him. I can see the point being made, but as we discussed in class, it seems that too many get re-elected just because of their name, which that can increase your chance of corruption.
ReplyDelete-Ryan Fox
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMy view of term limits for the West Virginia Legislature is similar to that of Ryan Fox.
DeleteIn class, we learned that West Virginia is largely a traditionalistic state, where there are generational politicians, participation is discouraged, and the main goal is to maintain the status quo. For this reason as well as the fact that West Virginia is a fairly homogenous state, I originally thought that enacting term limits for the state’s legislature would not be beneficial. However, as I researched the topic further, I discovered a poll which found that 83% of West Virginians are in favor of term limits (http://www.isidewith.com/poll/313812228/9333348).
The support of term limits by West Virginians alone should be enough of a reason for our government to enact them. If it does not suffice, the overwhelming advantages that incumbents have over challengers should make the equity that term limits would create clearer. As mentioned in the article that supports term limits, incumbents have more name recognition, more money available, and are better equipped to distribute their campaign advertising. All this equals out to over eighty percent of incumbents being reelected(https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php).. The question now becomes, are they being reelected because they are good legislators, or because they have an unfair advantage over challengers?
Consecutive term limits could answer this question. By limiting the number of consecutive terms a person can serve, but still allowing she or he to run again at a later date, constituents can get an idea of who is truly better for their state. If constituents really like a certain representative, they can reelect she or he after a new legislator has been given a chance.
To agree with the majority of my classmates, I am in the middle of this issue as I can see both sides of this argument when it comes to term limits in West Virginia. These limits regulate corruption, and ultimately result in a positive outcome as different people have the opportunity to share different ideas. I like how it gives other people a chance to better the state. However, i believe if a certain individual is doing a good job and is being effective, then they should be able to stay in office or at least be able to move up to a more powerful position. If one could only stay in office for a maximum of eight years, then once election day comes, as stated in one of the articles, voters will be limited of who they can vote for and they can't re-elect the person they actually want in office/stay in office. Almost everything needs limits, without limits the world would be much different then it is now. It just so happens that term limits are hard to come by because they are sometimes beneficial and sometimes negative.
ReplyDeleteLike many other of my classmates, I can see both sides to the argument of whether to have term limits in WV or not. But I suppose when it comes down to it, I believe that WV would benefit to having term limits. I personally believe that after a term limit like Ohio being 8 years for the Senate and House, being a good period of time to hold those positions. If these positions are held for too long as time changes so do the needs of the people whom they legislatures represent. Fresh new ideas to approach topics need to be brought to the table and that certainly is not going to be achieved with legislators such as Robert Byrd.
ReplyDeletehttp://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704212804575333160213073990
http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/28/sen-robert-byrd-not-only-was-a-kkk-member-but-led-his-local-klan-chapter/
I work with many WV natives and they have voiced how they wish there were term limits in WV because CNN and many other News stations had filmed Byrd many times napping on the senate floor in Washington, and found that tremendously embarrassing. Being a former KKK member to me does not reflect the democracy of what we now call America. I believe that Byrd is a prime example why WV should establish term limits. In order to be a thriving state WV needs people who have innovative ideals to bring to the table versus 92 year old men that at one time strongly valued segregation laws. For me term limits would be nothing but positive for West Virginia.
I think that term limits would be a good idea for the state of West Virginia. My primary reason for thinking this way is that there are indeed many individuals who are very good at their job and are very popular among the voters who would then be pivotal in getting that person reelected. This would make the idea of having term limits seem unappealing. However, there are certainly plenty of politicians in the same positions who are not nearly as popular or as efficient as others. There are also many individuals who promise to accomplish different goals or objective during their term that aren't always fulfilled, yet still many of these same individuals find a way to get reelected. This is why term limits are essential. There will always be pros and cons to choosing to have or not have term limits, but the main point is that the term limit protects a state's stability and forces a much more magnified viewpoint for deciding whether reelection would improve upon their current group of legislators. It also helps to keep these individuals more young and updated to the modern issues of a state with more modern viewpoints as well.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that I'm in the middle of this issue and somewhat agree with my classmates. I can see both sides when it comes to limits in West Virginia. I feel that the limits do regulate corruption and can result in a positive outcome because of different peoples ideas being brought to the table. I like how it gives many people the opportunity to better their state. But on the other hand, I feel that a person that is in office and is doing a good job and being effective they should be able to stay in office or be able to move up in office as well. But the limit of this would be; if a person stays in office for 8 years it makes it more difficult for the people to reelect the person that they want in office. Everything needs limits and it helps to have them because they can be beneficial but also negative.
ReplyDeleteEven though a few of my classmates have said they're neutral about the topic, I agree with many of my other classmates on the fact that while term limiting may not directly pertain to me, it does have an effect on me. Although there are strong arguments for each side, I lean more towards having term limits for elected offices.
ReplyDeleteWhile people might argue that not having any limit would keep the more popular person in office, I believe there needs to be more of a variety. If there were no limits then the voting people might get comfortable with a certain person and just get used to seeing that name and would just automatically keep voting for them.
Having the term limits also gets more newer people elected into the office that might have more current, up-to-date ideas and solutions to add into the mix. I also think that many elected positions are used as a sort of stepping stone into a higher office for some, so the limits would keep people from being in a certain office for too long. And many higher positions also already have certain term limits, so I think it's a good idea to keep everything uniform with the elected officials. Limits would help bring in a diversity into the mix of things.
In conclusion, I believe the term limits are very beneficial for many positions and could do nothing but help.
This is a great topic to debate because there is so much evidence to support either side. I can see all the diverse opinions of classmates and it really makes me think twice about my opinion. However, I believe that there shouldn't be term limits. Elected legislators are elected by their district for a reason. Some better than others, but there is always a reason that the majority of a district voted for that candidate. To limit the amount of terms served by a representative of a district or area, you will be limiting the amount of say and how strong a certain district is in legislation.
ReplyDeleteThis can cause more confusion in legislation resulting in budgetary problems, policy problems, and even ruin relations within the capitol building. Change results in the slowing down of the entire legislative process. Unless voted upon by that district or area, why should legislators be forced to give up their seat and all the work they put into their district, all because they have reached their term limit?
I am against legislative terms as a whole.
ReplyDeleteHaving legislative terms hinders the citizens right to elect officials one feels fit. If a elected official is successful and is representing the state well, with the majority of the states citizens happy, then the elected official should remain in place. I like to relate this topic to the phrase, "Why fix what isn't broken?"
It is said that terms are needed to bring in new and fresh ideas, but let's say that WV is contempt with the way things are, why change it?
However after completely the journal entry project it is clear that many citizens and agencies are fairly unhappy with the way legislation is working with the new fiscal budget. Programs are being cut and the solutions regarding the Elk River Chemical Spill are unsatisfactory. For WV, citizens should vote out who they want to vote out and bring in who they want to bring in.
After reading multiple articles concerning the term limit, I believe West Virginia should implement term limits. By implementing term limits, West Virginia would limit corruption because it stops the same people being elected every year. It gets that mind set of people voting because of their NAME and not what they could actually bring to the table. Allowing term limits will benefit WV because the people elected would have a certain amount of years to make a difference and it gets rid of the Status aspect of the politician's hope of congress. The minority voters stop voting when they see that the same guy win because of money and the people standing in his corner. Getting rid of corruption is the main cause because I find that in smaller towns and cites are far more corrupt than lets say the big apple. Why? There are far more interest groups in the big apple than Charleston, WV. Granted corruption is everywhere whether we like it or not but, would you rather swing few interest groups and politicians or a lot? So for me term limits would be a excellent idea.
ReplyDelete-Patrick Dabrowski
The issue on whether term limits should put to use or not in a state is definitely a good debate. I understand both sides of the argument and agree with different views but I think it is essentially a good idea for West Virginia. When dealing with more diverse and corrupted states, I think the eliminating the term limits are beneficial but not for a state like West Virginia. An example of these larger states would be one with big cities and a very diverse population. These states have more diverse people that are more likely to run for office as opposed to West Virginia where chances of diversity in legislation are low. If it were any other state than a state like West Virginia I think term limits are not useful.
ReplyDeleteAn example of why it would not be beneficial for some states other than West Virginia is an interesting article I found posted by the Los Angeles Times called “New fight takes shape over term limits.” (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/18/local/la-me-term-limits-20120518) The article had strong key points on why some people are against term limits in California. The article claimed “proponents contend that existing law doesn’t give people enough time in one office to fully master complex issues and the lawmaking process.” It also states that the term limits make politicians more focused on campaigning for their next office than doing their job.” Not only do the limits have these affects but the article claims it defiantly opens the door for greater lobbying influence.
On the flip side, although this article is a good argument for California, term limits are a different situation in a state like West Virginia. According to a separate article I found on Idebate.org, (http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/politics/house-would-enforce-term-limits-legislative-branch-government) term limits create a far more competitive election. Although this may pull away from the focus of the politicians job to focus on re-election, the more competitive the election, the more ideas and leadership is brought to the table. The more competitive the election becomes, the more creative ideas arise which a state like West Virginia defiantly needs. The limit on terms also restores the concept of rotation and eliminates personal advantage. When a legislator is in office for too long the knowledge and skill they obtain helps them beat the system and gives a great advantage in office. West Virginia needs this rotation to bring in more diversity and essentially stir up competition to create a stronger and balanced legislation.
-Brooke Duddie
Legislators should not have term limits. While there are respectable pros and cons to each side of the argument, West Virginia should be a state to remain without limits. I am from Ohio, a state with limits on the number of terms that Legislators can serve. My dad works as an attorney for the state and deals with the Legislature often. When I asked him his views on term limits, he responded saying they are a terrible concept or idea from what he sees firsthand in the government. Government workers give each other jobs.
ReplyDeleteWith limits, too much power is left to the executive branch of state government. Politicians seek to make a career out of political science. With term limits, Legislators are only guaranteed temporary careers. After a term is up, executives provide government jobs to those they choose whose time expired in the Legislator. This is why it is corrupt. The positions provided may not be best suited for the politician receiving it. Many times, these jobs are favors from the governor. Instead of trying to make the best decision while voting on issues, a Legislator may make decisions to please the governor in order to receive a job because they have nothing to go home to. Thomas Suddes refers to this argument in his Cleveland.com editorial as well. It is all about the relationship with the executive branch.
Term limits are already naturally in place. Voters set limits on Legislators every four years by voting them in and out of office. If its constituent is unhappy with the Legislator, it already has the right to remove him or her from office. With the limitations set, it directly discredits the rights of the voters. As the debate website point against argument puts it, “Term limits are undemocratic and suggest, falsely, that voters cannot make intelligent decisions about their representatives without guidance.” Voters complain that their voice is not heard in government. If they have a Legislator well liked and supported, he or she cannot remain in office even if they are best for the job. Thus, the representatives are always temporary, regardless of ability and effectiveness.
My response seems to be unpopular compared to my classmates’ postings. Most are either neutral about the topic or believe that West Virginia should implement term limits. West Virginia already has well working Legislature that routinely makes decisions for the state, like we just learned firsthand with the journals. There is no need to fix what is not broken. In addition, according to class lecture, West Virginia’s governor already holds a great amount of power. Creating term limits would only increase this.
I believe term limits can be both positive and negative for states. Positive in the fact that it could cut down on corruption, increase diversity, and generate new and fresh ideas. I think term limits could benefit the state and legislature as a whole just by simply placing a limit on how long someone can serve.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that sometimes in the case of West Virginia that not having term limits can be a positive thing. Even though many people have mixed beliefs about him Robert C. Byrd served in the senate forever. He was not necessarily known for being a quality person, but he brought an incredible amount of money back into the state. So the argument could be made for both sides that the longer you serve, the more power that one can gain, and the larger his voice gets in the legislative.
In the end I believe that it will be better to have term limits. I think that it should be used in every state just to keep things different every so often, and to keep new ideas coming in every year. So I believe that term limits should be placed in every state.
Term limits are, in general, a hinderance to the American democracy. While some might argue that term limits help to bring in new blood and fresh ideas, they restrict the ability of the electorate to actually decide what is best for themselves. Ultimately, elections are a more complicated methods of limiting the terms of ineffective or unpopular representatives. Term limits, then, are redundant. Additionally, it is fool-hardy to believe that freshmen legislators are not dependent on the support of high-level donors and lobbyists. In order to enter into office these individuals need large amounts of campaign funding. Advocates of term limits assert that senior representatives are beholden to the will of their wealthy, largely anonymous donors. In the case of funding, then, both the challenger and the incumbent are subject to the influence of monied interests. Instead of establishing term limits in West Virginia I feel that a better course of action would be to reform campaign financing to make elections and campaigns publicly-funded. Yes, this would put a greater burden on the taxpayers, but it would keep control of electoral affairs in their hands and out of those who might seek personal advancement.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the point that Megan Collins made about former Senator Robert Byrd, I would simply argue that, the people of the state of West Virginia chose to reelect the Senator by large margins in every election.
I understand the limits for our state in this case, but I am on the fence on this issue. I can see benefits from both sides of the argument. The limits regulate corruption to a degree, and helps people add in new plans or ideas to the system. The more the merrier, right? That said, someone in office for a long time clearly knows how to do their job, and competent members in office is an obvious plus. It is certainly an odd situation, but I feel like the states are all still running using their current methods of limiting, West Virginia included, so I suppose that means something is working.
ReplyDeleteLegislative term limits seem to be a healthy change for most of the states using them. This issue should be a per state issue decided by the residents in the state. But whatever is decided should be able to be changed by the residents of that state when they feel it is necessary to do so. When looking at the chart listed the results of residents voting seems to stay consistent with the national average and that they may even have increased voter turnout. This may have to do with the feeling of the citizens of those states that each election matters more so my vote counts more than it would in another state.
ReplyDeleteLegislative term limits seem to be a good idea for the state of West Virginia but the laws to set that in place will not happen in reality as the citizens of West Virginia would feel that their right to vote for who they want will be hindered by those laws. Most of the citizens in West Virginia probably want to have more individual control over the state's decision making and laws and therefore will be opposed to handing more power to the governor and lobbyists who they might not agree with.
No state should have term limits on those they elect into office because it prevents honest freedom of speech even though a big potential consequence is corruption. The case against term limits and the case for term limits on both links mostly make a similar argument, just one side wants more power to the individual and the other wants to trust the legislature and governor more by giving them more influence. I agree with Brooke and Mitchell on the fact that this is a good debate topic and can easily understand both sides to the argument.
-Alex Haugen
I think that enforcing term limits for the state legislature is a good idea, and that it has more positive effects than negative consequences. As noted in the blog assignment, term limits decreases the risk of corrupt individuals from remaining in power (no matter how popular they may be). Along with that, it also encourages diversity within the legislature because new people (with different backgrounds, experiences and opinions) will be given the opportunity to join the legislature and represent the people who have similar concerns. I feel that term limits should be mandatory for this reason.
ReplyDeleteAs noted in the article “Answers to Most Common Negative Arguments” published by termlimits.com, term limits can result in a less experienced state legislature because new-comers obviously have not worked for the legislature for as long as individuals who have been re-elected several times . Although many would argue that this experience is needed, re-electing the same individuals who have the same level of experience prevents the legislature from gaining fresh, new insights on particular topics. By enforcing term limits, it forces new members into the legislature and these new members may present more effective methods on how to address specific issues relevant to the state.
Imagine if there was no limit on the number of years a president could remain in office. While the people who voted for the president would probably not have a problem with that, there are many people who do not agree with the president, his beliefs and his way of doing things. The same goes with the state legislature, term limits give more power to the act of voting. Term limits would encourage people to vote because they will feel that their voice is being heard. Term limits would also ensure that a broader range of issues will be addressed and that the state population is more appropriately represented.
http://termlimits.com/answers.htm
-Alyssa Pluchino
I think legislative term limits would be good for West Virginia. I think it would force new people into office that would offer postive opinions, ideas, and a fresh take on things. Term limits might also make sure legislature gets things done at faster pace. If a legislator knows they can only be in office for a certain amount of time they might make sure that the things they wanted to accomplish to impact their state or their party, actually get done sooner. It also gives people a chance to get into office that look to go further in politics than just legislature, because they can’t serve that position forever. It will let people vote on candidates that have good arguments as to why they should be elected, rather legislators staying in office because theyre well-liked or they are comfortable. It would also lower corruption, candidates wont be favored or given extra money to stay in office because they’re helping out a certain group of people or favoring one group over another. There are a lot of reasons people can argue for or against having term limits, but after reading the articles and talking about it in class, these are a few why I think term limits would be a good idea in West Virginia.
ReplyDeleteI kind of think that term of limits can be a good and a bad thing. I think it should be enforced if you have someone in office who is not helping your state grow or prosper. Having new people in office can also help bring new thoughts and ideas to the table. But I also feel that it could be good to have someone in office for consecutive terms if they are helping your state flourish. I don't think you should mess something up that's working. West Virginia had one of the longest running members of congress in Robert C. Byrd. He was in office in consecutive terms and he brought a lot of money and projects to the state until his later years in office. But he is also the reason why term limits should be in place. In his later years before he died it seemed like he needed to retired. He was getting old and had health issues. I just think there is time you have to realize that you can no longer do the job as you once did, you have to retire or step down and let someone else take a shot at the position.
ReplyDeleteAs a majority of my classmates have already stated, I am almost completely neutral on the issue of legislative term limits. I do feel that term limits could reduce some corruption in the Legislature, but as stated in one of the articles, this lets more power rest in the hands of the bureaucracy. Members of the bureaucracy are not there by popular decision as those elected are. However, I feel that term limits do offer a greater chance for new officials to be elected and allow for more change to occur. For states that have legislatures as a full time position, I feel that term limits are not ideal. Also, I think that term limits should depend on the level of office, meaning I agree with the national term limits, but not always for state leaders. With this being said, I do not think that West Virginia legislatures should be held to term limits. Democracy should not be limited in our state.
ReplyDeleteI think term limits may have down sides but ultimately is the better choice. With term limits it would give more opportunities for other people that may not have gotten a chance to get in those positions without out the limit, so I think that it would promote diversity with the system. I also believe that it would lower corruption to an extent, because being in a position that is will be open to change who has power over it. The Term limits I think give more opportunities than it takes away.
ReplyDeleteI believe that West Virginia’s legislative system should be required to have term limits. Having term limits would provide a fresh perspective in office. This would also help people in office to become less greedy and actually want to help their constituents. New people in office realize that they will only be in office for a certain amount of time, which means that they will soon be a constituent themselves. This helps people in office become less selfish especially when they only have a certain amount of time to serve in office and to serve their people. Along with my classmates I do understand both sides of the story but I do believe that term limits is a necessary step in order to provide an equal opportunity in office for people. I fully believe West Virginia would benefit extremely well by having term limits as opposed to larger states.
ReplyDelete-Savannah Wood
This is a topic that I have always went back and forth on deciding what I thought would be best. On one hand, term limits keep a person from gaining too much power over a long period of time based on money, knowing the name, etc. On the other hand, no term limits allow voters to vote who they think is right every time, and it gives the opportunity for helpful policies to be fully realized when you have the right person in place over and over again. Plus, it creates continuity which can be very helpful, again, when you have the right people in place.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that there should be term limits in place. The main reason goes all the way up to the U.S. Constitution implementing term limits for the president, in that it would give too much power to one person for a long period of time. Plus, I would like to think that this would give the politicians the incentive to implement better policies because they would have to soon live under the policies that they create. As far as WV is concerned, term limits should be in place for the legislature in my opinion, because it would reduce corruption and perhaps move the state in a different direction. Things haven't exactly been trending in a positive direction in the past few decades, so maybe it is time for a change in some area, if anything just to shake things up.
I personally think that term limits are a good idea for West Virginia. I think it helps keeps corruption down, and while not everybody is corrupt, it would help to help keep corruption down. I also think that it would make the elections more competitive if there were set terms. However, I don't think that one person should limit the amount of terms they can serve altogether, just consecutively. I also feel that term limits would help from keeping politics stale. If the same person is in office the whole time, they might not have as progressive ideas as new politicians who might start running.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the terms have both pros and cons. To me, I think by limiting the terms it would definitely limit corruption but I don’t think it would completely stop. Also for the people who do serve many terms might lack new ideas or get tired of what they’re doing. But it could also be a good thing because people might have work that’s an on going process or have more experience since they have been there for so long. Overall I feel that by allowing the terms limits it will give more people a chance and it will make the legislature more diverse and there will be more opinions.
ReplyDeleteI believe the state of West Virginia should impose term limits on elected officials in House and Senate. By doing this it would encourage diversity and "new blood" in the legislature, while weeding out corruption and career politicians whose real interests are in prolonging their careers and serving the private sector rather than serving the citizens of West Virginia. Term Limits also encourage "citizen legislators" or ordinary citizens to participate in government. This was one of the core ideas of which this country was founded on. Citizens know better than anyone else what the citizens of a state need. While some argue that term limits cause inexperience, I'd feel safer knowing there was someone on the floor who stood with me and represented my true interests rather than someone who was "experienced" and had been in state legislature for a long time. Statistically speaking WV ranks close to last in a lot of categories, particularly median household income and obesity. Facts like this make it quite clear to me that I would prefer some newer members in the State Legislature because the job not getting done. In my opinion a 12 year limit would allow a legislator an ample amount of time to achieve goals and establish a good resume. Then after 12 years said legislator can move to another house for another 12 years if he/she is successful and popular enough. After a total of 24 years in State Legislative politics said politician would still have the opportunity to run in other positions in politics and government aside from the House and Senate so the argument that it takes away voters rights doesn't seem to hold up to me. 24 years in the House and Senate and then the opportunity to run as Mayor, Governor Etc. seems like adequate representation to me. All of these reasons above are why I am for Term Limits of 12 years here in West Virginia.
ReplyDeleteI believe that term limits should not be in place in our state legislature. After looking and researching the articles you gave us and another article (http://restartcongress.org/revolution/arguments-for-term-limits/), I came to the conclusion that I believe term limits are kind of pointless. I see them as pointless because if we want to get a legislator out of our legislature then we simply need to not reelect them. Many people use the example that if a legislator is in office for so long they will continue to get reelected because of name recognition. I agree that this makes sense but I believe it is our duty as voters to pay attention to whether our legislators are doing a good job for our state legislature. If we pay attention to our legislators, we would know who to vote for reelection. I do not believe it is right for us to have term limits also because this causes good legislators, who are doing things for their district and our state, to not be reelected.
ReplyDeleteWith the issue of term limits I can definitely see both sides to this very intrusive argument. I can see where people against it will say that someone who is liked in office by there people should be able to run and be elected as many times as they damn well please. Because if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
ReplyDeleteThe other side of the argument is that a constant turnover in delegation can create problems within a state legislature on getting work done, and can actually lead to corruption and lobbyist influence among state legislatures
But on the other side people say that term limits will actually make corruption and lobbyist influence less of an issue, but in fact in can do the opposite This article I found backs my statement. http://media.wayne.edu/2010/03/08/twelveyear-study-by-wayne-state-faculty-shows. The Article states,"These term limits were sold to Michigan voters on the notion that they would sever close ties with lobbyists and cause legislators to be more independent," Political scientist Sarbaugh-Thompson said. "In reality, we found them to have the opposite impact." Another thing that this article stated was that term limits raises the likelihood of more diverse legislatures
People for term limits make some valid points as well, they say that with term limits corruption and lobbyist don't have the opportunity to conspire at the state government level. Another good point is that having a term limit creates a well off checks and balances system in our government that makes everything far To everyone. Also according to internet sites Dr berchs internet sites and some that I have found myself Term limits also bring diversity to state legislature, all of which sound nice and dandy.
As For West Virginia I honestly have mixed feelings about the possibility of term limits. I think West Virginia has one of the highest "I'll vote for the name" mentality in the country. The majority of our State Legislature is White middle aged males and thats just the reality of West Virginia we are not a diverse state what so ever. But after reading several articles and learning more about the information I think the system we currently have in place is working fine here in West Virginia. I think every state legislature has some form of corruption and lobbyist power which I think is the downfall of all legislatures and it seams like term limits don't do much to stop that! I also believe that in West Virginia people vote for there person they honestly believe is doing a good job bringing a positive impact to there region. If they want them out they do not need a term limit to get them out, they will vote them out!
I think that term limits are a must. If someone is elected time and time again because he or she is very charismatic and well spoken, yet they do not implement policies that are what is best for the country, it can be very problematic. I think that there are many more positives than negatives in having term limits. Not having term limits greatly increases corruption, for example. If there is no limit to being in office, then it gives an official a more selfish incentive to do things that are in their interest and not in the people’s interest of the country. They know that they will not be forced out of office, since there would be no reelections until they resign, so they will most likely feel like they are untouchable and can do what they please. Another argument for term limits is diversity. If the legislature does not have people with different views and from different ethnic backgrounds, then it could be very one-sided. There must be opposing views and beliefs in the legislature so that there can be compromise and the best bills for the country will be passed. Also, competition is another important aspect. Competitive elections create citizen involvement in the political arena, which is what this country stands for. According to the “Citizens For Term Limits” article, there are long-time incumbents who have become injurious to the country’s well being, and a Congress with a term limit can keep the bureaucracy’s size controlled. I completely agree with these statements. Furthermore, I agree with Kimberly Gomez’s statement about term limits giving others a chance to serve. No term limits would prohibit others from having a chance of being in the legislature. This country stands for freedom, equality and fairness. Therefore, not having term limits would be unethical. Thus, I think that West Virginia should have legislative term limits. It would make the state more diverse and fairer policies would be implemented.
ReplyDeleteI feel that there should not be legislative term limits on all states, including West Virginia. Legislatures that are previously elected have a strong background in their position, and know how to appropriately handle situations that other new members may not. I agree that we technically already have “term limits” due to the fact that the citizens vote whether or not they want a specific candidate back or not. If they feel that they are not worthy of the job, then they wont be re-elected. I feel the most important thing to consider when deciding whether to enforce term limits would be that they weaken the legislative branch. As citizens, we expect that the legislative branch, along with all branches of the government, is strong. Deciding that a candidate can’t be reelected because they have already successfully completed a certain number of years is absurd. If the citizens feel they should continue to represent them, why should there be a limit? I strongly believe that well educated citizens know which candidates are best to be elected, or reelected into office. We do not need government laws telling us who we can and can’t elect back into government.
ReplyDeleteUnlike many of my peers, I do not support term limits. I believe that the people should be able to vote for whoever they think will do the best job regardless of how long they have been doing it. While term limits may reduce corruption on behalf of the legislatures it could very easily increase corruption by giving additional power to the governor, an UNELECTED bureaucracy and worst of all, lobbyists. Also term limits probably do not increase competition much at least within the legislature. If someone has been serving for 30 years they would appear to be pretty good at their job and would surely have a good share of power and say within the legislature. That being said newly elected official who have never served before would have little to no power and get walked on by those with seniority. When it comes down to it, let the people vote and do not restrict how long someone can serve.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that term limits are a good thing for state offices. I think that offices should be for two terms for four years each term. I think this because I feel it is important to have new people in office because this can provide new ideas that can help the state. However, I believe that it takes legislators several years to pursue on their ideas and to improve the state. I think that eight years is adequate time for a legislator to incorporate their ideas to help improve the state. For example, Senator Byrd was in the senate for decades and he brought a great deal of money to our state. However, I think that the last several years of his life he was not best suited for the position and I believe that he needed to be replaced. Therefore, I agree with limiting terms of legislators but I think that they should be given at least eight years in office but no more than twelve in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteLike my classmates, I am pretty neutral on term limits for legislators. With term limits in place, it puts a limit on corruption. When people are in office for multiple years, it could allow them to "know the ropes" better and maybe get around some unfair passing of laws and have advantages. When election comes around, have term limits would stop people from voting for someone based on their name because they are used to seeing them on the ballot, allowing for new people to be elected based on what they are capable of. Having term limits allows new people to come into power and share their ideas for better opportunities for their state.
ReplyDeleteNot having term limits however could make the legislature more stable, the complete opposite. With the same people in legislature, it better predicts what would happen. Also, if youve been in the legislature for long enough and doing a good job, you should be able to stay. When new people are elected in, they will always compare them to the ones that have been in office for many years.
So, both sides have a valid argument. With West Virginia however, I think that term limits should be enabled. After completing the legislature journal project, I noticed a lot of articles dealing with people in WV not too happy with the legislature. They wanted more answers and solutions dealing with the Elk River chemical spill. The state seemed like it was not too helpful with getting people back on their feet after that tragedy, and i think the legislature is to blame.
In my opinion, term limits would improve the current state of the West Virginia Legislature. Term limits prevent certain politicians from being able to hold a position in office for a long period of time.
ReplyDeletePoliticians who serve for a long period of time tend to only win these elections based off their names, not what they believe in. People recognize the name, and tend to vote for these people due to familiarity. Due to this, voters do not really read into their policies, but rather think they will be a good representative because they have heard of them before. Setting term limits would essentially eliminate candidates being voted on solely because of their name.
Also, candidates who hold office for long terms tend to get comfortable and may not due the best job. There are no influx of new ideas, and they tend to stick to what has gotten them reelected throughout the years. Setting limits would provide candidates with new ideas which could help the legislature by providing new voices.
However, I do see the other side of the argument as well. Some believe that if a good job is being done by the candidate in legislature then there should be no reason to make a change. The saying, "If it is not broke, don't fix it." applies here because if things are going well, then there is no need for a change.
All in all, I believe that term limits would improve the West Virginia State Legislature overall because new ideas would be brought to the legislature and candidates would no longer be elected solely on their names, but the policies and ideas they have instead.
For the state of West Virginia, Term limits do not make sense. While term limits allow for more members of the society to serve in government, it removes specializations in policy areas. By removing specializations, it is possible that legislation will be passed that does more harm to an industry than what would necessarily be done by someone that has a deep understanding of the specific policy area.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed opinion on term limits, much like my fellow classmates, but I will have to lean more toward having term limits in West Virginia. Term limits would not give corruption the opportunity to conspire at the state government level, which can be a continuous and ongoing problem once it has began. Having term limits also creates a checks and balances system in our states legislature. Also it would give congressional staff members more control. What frequently happens is the members of Congress aren't fully educated on what they're actually voting on and the different provisions. Having term limits would give the staff the control, since it's such a short period of time, to regain control. A term limited democracy, can also, if willing to, bring down bureaucracy. I also agree with Jacob Butler that one person shouldn't limit the amount of terms they can serve altogether, but that it should be consecutively. All in all, I think putting a limit on terms will create more competitive elections and bring the legislature back together and even more organized. Even though different people will be serving, it won't become lax and somewhat repetitive with new minds and thoughts rotating through.
ReplyDeleteThe term limit argument is very broad and is reasonable on both ends. Those In favor argue that term limits reduce corruption, increase diversity and create more competitive elections. On the other hand, many believe that term limits put more power in the hands of the governor, lobbyists, and the unelected bureaucracy. They also would reduce the quality of those seeking office. Whether your opinion is one way or the other I believe this is a state-to-state issue where term limits may benefit one state but not another. Classmate Brooke Duddie hit it on the head when she suggested that term limits wouldn’t necessarily benefit West Virginia because of the lack of diversity. West Virginia is a predominantly white state and the chance of any other race winning an election is slim to none. With that being said, term limits wouldn’t make the office anymore diverse than it already is for a state like West Virginia. Bigger and more diverse states, such as Florida, would be better served with term limits.
ReplyDeleteLike I’ve already stated, I believe this is a state-to-state issue that may benefit one state and not another. I agree with classmate Alex Haugen who said the residents in the state should decide this issue. If constituents are unhappy with term limits, they should be allowed to vote to change it. In an article titled: “Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits” (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/debating-the-pros-and-cons-of-term-limits/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0) , Dick Dadey states “If term limits are to be changed, we believe the voters are the ones to be making that decision not the City Council." At the end of the day, constituents are the people that need to be satisfied. They should be able to decide whether they have term limits or not.
On the other hand, after researching about minorities and women in legislature, I have found that term limits have given them far greater opportunities than ever before. In this article about increasing diversity in legislature, they state the minorities and women have been shut out of electoral politics due to an “entrenched block of white male incumbents.” (http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/research/topics/documents/TermLimitsDiversity.pdf) This is a fact that can’t be debated, yet the author suggests that term limits alone could be the deciding factor in making sure our legislature is composed of a greater diversity of people. This will assure more equal representation and increase the amount of quality minorities and women running for office. Again, I don't think it would matter in West Virginia.
There are pros and cons to term limits. If you consider a law maker good, term limits bar them from becoming an even better law maker. If their bad and the system worked the would just be voted out. As one of the articles (Northeast Ohio) stated if one body of legislature has term limits(say the house) it causes an imbalance as other bodies become stronger(say the executive).
ReplyDeleteTerm limits do solve the unfair incumbency rate, as the incumbent can raise more money and has better name recognition among other advantages. Term limits also stops lobbyists from squeezing the leadership in any governing body.
Ultimately I think term limits are a bad thing for West Virginia. Robert C Byrd did a lot of good for WV if term limits he would not have been able to serve in the State legislature for many years before moving on. We need strong representatives to promote a good future for WV.
This topic is something I find myself going back and forth between both sides. Overall, I think term limits are a good thing for legislatures. Term limits keep it running smoothly with limit amount of room for error. When a politician is in the system for a long enough period of time, they sometimes tend to get too comfortable with their position and go outside the lines to cause corruption. Once a politician knows the ins and outs of how things work they may begin to think they can get away with things more than they did when they were first elected. These term limits allow these things to be avoidable. With new politicians elected in and existing politicians forced out after serving the maximum amount of terms, it allows for the legislature to run without excess thoughts of corruption.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I sometimes find myself thinking that maybe we delve to deep into the people that have corrupted the system. Although there has been cases where politicians corrupt the system, we do not see beyond that and realize most of those in office are doing their job very well. If we didn't have term limits, those who are running it accordingly would be able to hold office longer and continue to be successful at what they do.
Again, I also believe that having these limits would allow new faces and new ideas to come into office and provide for more successful futures. If voters keep seeing the same name on the ballot and no problems happened during their term, then they will proceed to keep voting for the well-known compared to giving new names a chance. It is a topic that I can debate all day. However, overall, I believe there should be some sort of a term limit in every state.
Brittany Cavanaugh
Though there are compelling arguments for both sides, I believe that term limits are undemocratic by their very nature. The arguments for term limits admittedly make sense. There are many legislators who have sat in office for decades and no longer feel accountable to their voters. The ease for corruption to sneak in is very easy. Power corrupts and the longer that one holds power the more blind they become to their voting base. It also would guarantee that the legislation is constantly full of fresh faces and new ideas.
ReplyDeleteAll of that said, I have to argue against term limits. There are two major reasons that I argue against term limits. One is that it takes away power from the voters. In a democratic republic, the legislators should be held accountable to their voters. By enforcing term limits, they no longer have to worry about reelection. They can run rampant and do whatever they want in office. While this may help an idealist more effectively push ideas and worry less about politics, it may allow bad legislators to delve into corruption and power without worry of reprise.
This also encourages voter laziness. People often complain that legislators should have term limits so that the legislators never get comfortable in office. However this only occurs because the people continue to vote for the same legislators over and over. The voters do not do their job in ensuring the democratic system works. By imposing term limits, it only decrease voter turnout (http://spa.sagepub.com/content/7/2/187.full.pdf+html). Instead of complaining, people should take their voice to the polls and actually do something about it. It's easy to complain that the system doesn't work, but when you enable the system to fail by never voting or repeatedly voting for the same candidates, only the voters have themselves to blame. This can also work conversely. A really good legislator that does a great job may be forced out of office before his time by term limits.
My final argument against term limits is that it lowers the professionalism of the legislation. Bills have a good deal of legislative procedure behind them. The process of passing a bill varies from state to state and new legislators need time to learn all of the different rules. Term limits mean the legislators may only just learn all of the different functions before being forced from office. Legislators can't pass their knowledge to the new crop when they get forced out by term limits.
Ultimately, term limits are not a good idea. Though there are legitimate arguments for them, they often do the opposite of what they want and only encourage voters to become more complacent. The end goal should be a system of high voter turnout where the people's voice is truly heard. Term limits do not allow that and only harm the democratic system.
Personally, I see both sides to this issue whether or not West Virginia should have term limits in the state legislature. In WV they meet for 60 days discussing what is best for the wild and wonderful state. As reading some of the links provided for us, there are pros and cons to term limits. If there is no term limit being held, than why not keep the same legislators if they are doing there jobs and have the support from their citizens. But on the contrary, if the legislature does not succeed to its full potential, there should not be term limits for state representatives.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is that there should be term limits because it gives the people a voice in their state government. By having term limits it is up to the people of West Virginia to decide who they want to represent them in the legislature or not. Term limits allows new ideas and new opinions to be mentioned in the legislature by having legislators. With our previous assignment, the legislative journals, I think that the WV legislature should have term limits to bring in new people to better improve our state. Seeing what they have done in their recent 60 day session did not get my approval with what they passed, thus term limits and getting the old out.
For West Virginia, the term limits can help for many reasons, considering West Virginia isn't a state that has a lot of power outside of legislature like New York there are many reasons why I believe term limits are actually a good thing.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I think limits can be beneficial. Term limits can regulate someone in office if they aren't doing a good job it also yields corruption. Though, if they aren't corrupt it can hurt a state because maybe the person is undeniably helping the state in many ways. I also believe that having a fresh person in office with different views can also help the state as well. It helps people build there resume for higher offices if the terms are limited. In most cases if you are elected for all eight years, you most likely are doing something right and the people of the state can either just be un-educated on whether the person is actually helping the state or they just elect based on the popularity of the name. All in all, I see both the negatives and the positives of having limits and not but I general think its a good idea to have a max on how many times they can serve in the legislature.
I’m neutral on term limits for elected politicians. I think term limits could have both positive and negative effects on the state. Although being in a position for a longer amount of time may be a good thing, whereas those elected officials may have a good insight on what they’re doing and what is going on because they’ve been holding the position for a while, it might not always be the best decision. New ideas can be helpful and could really benefit the state as a whole. Term limits would stop people from just voting for what they’re familiar with and instead start looking towards new people to be elected who could have really good ideas for the state. Although this would lead to new opportunities by having term limits, I also believe it’s not a bad thing to keep someone in office who is doing a good job no matter how long it has been. If an elected official has been getting their job done right, having them stay could be very beneficial for the legislature. I definitely see both sides to the argument, but I think for West Virginia’s sake term limits would be a positive improvement. I think that having new ideas introduced to the State would keep residents of West Virginia happy and allow for many new opportunities within the system.
ReplyDeleteI’m not on the fence about the question; I believe West Virginia should require term limits for legislators. West Virginia, currently has a bicameral Legislature comprised of 134 members – 34 Senators and 100 Delegates. They serve part-time as elected officials for two terms. The problem with this election system is that there is no term limit. Legislators can keep running for election, where they usually get reelected due to name recognition. I find this system to be corrupt, homogeneous and uncompetitive.
ReplyDeleteThe legislative system is corrupt due to legislators having the ability to prolong their terms. There are many ways that legislators can gain improper benefit from the misuse of their position, such as partaking in bribery, stealing government funds, and fueling ghost jobs and projects. A specific example of senators and representatives in West Virginia gaining improper benefits is through pork barreling projects. This is where legislators gain office to solely bring back government money to their representative district. The legislators who do this are corrupting the state, because they are only investing money into their district – rather than adhere to problems within the state.
Unlimited term limits also hurt West Virginia’s diverse community. A good example for West Virginia’s legislature would be the state of Florida. In 1992, Florida decided to make an eight-year term limit in the House and Senate. This in turn has created a more diverse legislature. In 2013, 27% of the Florida legislature was black and Hispanic compared to 12% in 1992. However, diversity still may continue to be a problem in West Virginia – considering the population is 94% white.
Besides the ambiguities of politics, the race to become a legislator just isn’t competitive. People can simply pick up a ticket and run for office, until he or she gets bored of the position. This means there is more corruption because the legislators can sit in office, while they gain name recognition. The notoriety allows legislators to keep running, because the people of West Virginia aren’t too concerned on whom they should vote for.
The legislative system is a mess because term limits does offer negative aspects. As mentioned by Mustafa Boz, if a legislator is voted out of office, the state of West Virginia would be losing a person who has gained experience and knowledge about the job. So, I agree with him because this will negatively affect state government. There will be more and more incompetent people in office. They will not know how to do the job as well as those before them. In other words, there will be too many “rookies.”
http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/legislative-term-limits-overview.aspx
Legislative Term Limits Overview (National Conference of State Legislators Website)
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/faqs/faq.cfm#mems
FAQs on the West Virginia Legislature (WV Legislative Website)
http://www.naag.org/addressing-legislative-corruption.php
An article addresses legislative corruption (National Association of Attorneys General)
http://www.floridatrend.com/article/16527/term-limits--theyre-too-short
An article about Florida’s legislators (Florida Trend Website)
I can see both sides of this debate whether incumbents should have term limits. On one hand, limits could keep new ideas flowing in the house and senate by getting younger or more diverse legislators with fresher ideas. On the other hand, why change something if its not broken? I lean toward no term limits for legislators. If the legislator is doing an exceptional job in office, and everything is running smoothly in the area, there is no reason to change anything by setting a limit on how long a person can do their job. Other careers dont have a limit how long you can be a manager or CEO- why would it be any different in government? Diversity and creativeness will never cease to exist, and if the current legislator isn't doing the best job, then the citizens will realize and get him/her out of office. This way of running office with no term limits gives a lot of power to the governor, but all out of respect because if he/she is always the favorite, then the majority of the citizens obviously think so. This process is the most effective in running a legislative office because it gives a lot of voice to the citizens, being able to yank the legislator from office at the end of any given term, but also, a lot of balance between citizens and the office.
ReplyDeletehttp://ballotpedia.org/Governor_of_West_Virginia
Parker Hull
There are definite benefits to having term limits, they help with defeating the corrupt individuals who are only continuing in the office due to their position as an incumbent. It might also get congress to actually listen to their constituents because they will not have the cushion of knowing they will continue on whether or not they please their people. term limits will inspire the creation of new ideas. If it becomes an “out with the old in with the new” , new congressmen will come in with new ideas and there will be a progression away from the stodgy beliefs of an older generation. If they are limited on the amount of terms they get, I believe that congressmen will start listening to their constituents and that there will be a new progressive movement.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the West Virginia House and Senate should have term limits. Term limits allow a new viewpoint and new ideas with new politicians every few years. The strongest argument against term limits is the lack of experience it naturally produce. There is a way around this problem though. By allowing a politician to serve in both houses, with term limits for each, it can provide experience while still limiting a politician's stay in office. The most dangerous effect of limitless politicians is the creation of a career politician. A career politician, while experienced, can become stubborn, one sided, and could lose the sight of their constituents. A term limit brings in new politicians, and giving them the ability to switch houses still gives the opportunity to rise as a politician without becoming closed off.
ReplyDeleteTerm limits should be a standard for every state, every political position. Having a limit on how long a person can serve will stop corruption in politics and help in all ares of anything, when new people have to be elected their new opinions are shown in the bills they pass for example and having a vary of peoples opinions on a board of people is a good thing. If someone elected does a bad job at whatever their position is, they would having to be re elected and when people don't see positive changes those people don't get re elected and someone else gets a chance to do a job that they could be amazing at. Also campaigning which would be a must to win again, would put money into our economy that needs a stimulation so badly.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've seen of West Virginia, this state needs major help. I don't know much about who's in office and how long they've been there or if they try for re election. Having a limit lets say only 2 term max 4 years each term, like the president would show people that if someone is doing a bad job you can vote against them and see results. In the competition of winning a re election people in these jobs would have to make sure they are passing the right bills and making good choices to keep the people who vote for them happy and keep voting for them. It's only fair to have limits on these kinds of jobs to give others a chance and to have changes made in the state.
I am on the fence about this subject on whether or not WV should have a term limit. This would prevent people who are an asset to the state in their position to remain in said position until they are no longer competent to do their job well. I think that term limits would, however, help remove officers who do not do their job well or are not an asset to the state. It is an interesting question nonetheless. With or without term limits people who hold office are only in office because of the voters. If the voters in the state of WV became more informed on who they are electing into office there may not be a need to remove an official after two terms.
ReplyDeleteOn a different note, having new officials with new ideas on how to move our state forward could be an advantage to a term limit. There would be more competition during elections and name recognition may lose value or it would be extremely valuable. Only time would tell. Either way term limits have pros and cons and the best way to figure out what works best for your state is through trial and error.
First I'd like to address that I had typed out a long, well thought out blog for this assignment and the website yet again deleted it all upon submission. This happened to me last time and I ended up having to submit a blog post not even close to the par of the other. This website has been very inefficient for me. Here I go again:
ReplyDeleteI believe this state should have term limits for many reasons. Political corruption is not one of them. Political corruption is possible on both sides and cannot be completely eliminated; therefore I am not using it for this argument. Without term limits, legislators can be distracted by winning their future terms over and over instead of focusing on passing current legislation. I also think that it allows charismatic, wealthy, well known legislators to win over and over solely for that reason. I have seen this happen in the race for Agriculture Commission in this state. In short, I believe term limits are better for this state due to fair competition and fresh ideas, minds, and opinions brought to the table through term limits.
I believe West Virginia should implement term limits. By implementing term limits, West Virginia would limit corruption because it stops the same people being elected every year. It gets that mind set of people voting because of Republican or Democrat and not what they actually stand for. Allowing term limits will benefit WV because the people elected would have a certain amount of years to make a difference. By doing this we stay close to a mindset of a Democratic country and less from a Socialist or Communist one. If the same elected official stay in office than the majority voter, the minority will stop voting since the rich are pumping money into the individuals who they’d like to stay in office. Corruption is everywhere but Checks and Balances were created for things like this, having a no limits term would get checked by the House because its unconstitional and not everyone sees eye to eye with the elected official. Corruption is everywhere, small cities or big cities but if the elected official is able to stay in office then they will be granted more discretion to do as they please. This tends to happen less in larger cities due to interest groups who most likely will oppose or be in favor of the official but in life there will always be someone there trying to take you down but if there is no limits then there will not be diversity within the city or town, this is why I believe term limits are necessary.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned in the prompt and by many students, term limits have pros and cons. Those need not be mentioned again. However, I would like to talk about how I recognize these pros and cons; I believe that having term limits is the best decision at the moment, especially in the state of West Virginia.
ReplyDeleteThe prompt mention that it promotes diversity. While many call this a pro to the argument for term limits, I call it essential to the well-being of the humans, both politicians and ordinary citizens. There used to be a time where only rich, white men called the shots. Since then we have made a lot of strides towards equality. People of various races, ethnicities, religions and of both genders are making their way into government. If I recall, African-Americans make up roughly 13-14% of US population, and I believe about 10% of House Seats belong to African-Americans. However, there is still work that needs to be done. Half of the states in this country have yet to elect an African-American into the House and less than 10 states have into the senate. Term Limits forces use to view a new batch of politicians and as we grow as a society, we will only begin to discover the talent of all people not just one group. This also promotes diverse ideas, which considering the current state of the country, wouldn’t hurt. Some people might say, “Well, if we want to put a new person in office, we just need not reelect the current holder of the position.” However, I see so many people say things like “This member of government is a good Christian person,” or “I could have a beer with this politician!” We don’t always judges politicians by their ability in office but rather their personal characteristics. Term limits forces us to look at the skill in office more often.
Also, I took the advice of the prompt and asked my friends for their opinions. I was mostly interested in the extreme democrats and extreme republicans. I talked to 10 people, 5 from each party and all 10 could see the logic behind term limits for their own reasons. Corruption was a popular issue discussed. Considering we just had a federal government shutdown because democrats and republicans couldn’t compromise, this is pretty unusual. I think an issue that causes this much unity needs to stick around for at least some time. I might be criticized with arguments such as: “Social norms aren’t always right,” or “Well, it is the bipartisan system that is bringing us down!” Those are valid claims and justifiable. However, remember, I said that term limits would help for the time being. Until we find a solution to some of these problems, I think it best suited to keep a system like term limits that unites us. It is like the issue of abortion. Many lawmakers disagree with it, but they will not outlaw it because of the repercussions it would bring (abortions done by people trying to get money and NOT certified doctors.) Could I see a future where we could potentially drop term limits? Yes. However, for the time being I think we need to keep them.
I believe that every state, not just West Virginia, should have term limits for legislatures. Just as a president can only serve two terms of four years, the house and senate need to be refreshed once in a while. If a popular legislature is reelected every single time he or she runs for office with no term limits, then the other half of the population who oppose their ideas will suffer. The citizens have the right to be represented. Just like the concept of third parties, it is hard for the minority party members to get their ideas across if the state is lopsided. For example, my home state Massachusetts is incredibly liberal, but my parents are conservative. Massachusetts is one of the several states in the United States that does not implement term limits. This basically means that a Democratic representative will be elected years after years and my parent votes will not even matter. On the flip side, if term limits were set is Massachusetts, the minority (conservatives) would have much more of a chance of gaining popularity. I agree with basically everything that classmate Alexa Nagy has stated. The main reason that conservatives are so unhappy in Massachusetts is because of the lack of diversity in the state government. By setting term limits, other will have a chance to create diversity. As with any state, West Virginia should have term limits so that the "whole" population will be able to potentially voice their opinions in government and be equally represented.
ReplyDeleteI believe that term limits would be good for West Virginia because it forces our House and Senate to have new representatives with new ideals and minds on board in our legislator. It prevents major problems with biases toward certain parties or opinions. People can become too comfortable with older, more traditional political and moral values when they have been in office for long & with term limits in our legislator, we could be much more progressive and current.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, politicians who are always in office because of a lack of term limits become career politicians. Just because a politician has been in his or her office for several decades doesn't imply that their political standpoints & passion in their work will still remain, just because they are "already good at what they do."
There are both positives and negatives to having or not having term limits, but in my opinion, it would work better & I think it would make voters believe that their votes & support for certain politicians would actually be more important since a different people would be coming into the House and Senate. I just think it would be a better representation of the American people, considering it's not the SAME politician with the SAME beliefs that he or she had from the 70s or 80s.
Should West Virginia Legislators have term limits? I believe that they should have term limits, however, I can understand both sides of the argument. The first major point that the article makes is that "We already have term limits, because we can vote out any politician at any time" which is true, but this is a stretch at the truth. It isn't necessarily easy to remove someone who has been in office for a longer amount of time, because with time in office comes with name recognition and the franking privilege, which is hard to overcome but not impossible. This would do West Virginia well, embracing a stereotype about my state, for the most part, everyone knows every one, or is related by some connection, much like the Kevin Bacon theory in Hollywood. Knowledge spreads fast, and if a Delegate or Senator does something that is not good for the area that they were voted from, soon everyone would know, and most people remember whenever a politician screws them over. My father still sometimes talks about an incumbent that was voted out of his district because he voted against a key issue regarding the area. Another point for no term limits in West Virginia, this builds experience in legislators. With term limits, the new legislators might have some expertise on a certain field, but may not know how to work that topic in legislation, as to where an experienced legislator would know how to work their area of expertise through the legislative body.
ReplyDeleteTerm Limits are not truly necessary for West Virginia for a few reasons or any where exactly. Term limits hampers voters ability to decide if they want a certain representative again. Also those representatives who are loyal to their constituents should have the right to keep on running. With these loyal representatives in office for multiple years allows them to gain experience and do their job better than most trying to obtain their position. Though there are bad apples which many see as a key argument for term limits. Though without term limits when these bad actions are seen in the light many of these representatives are voted out of office. With the constant changing of officials one can run into confusion in the legislation and those in office who don't know what to do for the first few secession which limits the legislature's effectiveness. Also with term limits it is argued that it would decrease corruption and lobbyist in government. Though corruption it might decrease with limiting peoples knowledge of the system. Though lobbyist intervention would not be limited. Because though they are not rerunning as much they still have to campaign. And lobbyist would be giving money to both sides in the campaign even more and without any name recognition or previous performances in office candidates would be buying their way into office even more than they are now.
ReplyDeleteI believe limiting terms in West Virginia would have positive results. For one, it would limit corruption. Once people are in office for so long, they make connections, hide money, can easier manipulate businesses and office holders, and learn the ropes. Second, term limits give other people a chance, keeping the office flowing with new ideas. This keeps change going: new people, mean new ideas. If the same people are in office, the same results will continue to show in policy decisions. As we discussed in class, many people become legislators as a stepping stone to their career. (Meaning they don't plan on this being a lifelong career, as they aren't getting paid a lot.) Also, if there weren't term limits, the focus would be on the same issues that are of interest to the legislator continuing to get re-elected. There are always many issues, and legislators have different opinions on which ones are and aren't of importance. As the chart shows, 15 states currently have term limits. In the house, the limit is 6-12 years, and in the Senate it's 8-12. I believe this is plenty of time for a legislator to get their ideas proposed and successfully accomplished.
ReplyDeleteI can easily see both sides of the term limit argument. But in my personal opinion, they are very useful in West Virginia for many reasons. One of those reasons is to help combat the rampant corruption that West Virginia is known for. Many political corruption scandals have occurred here in the past few years such as the 2004 Logan County FBI sting, or the 2013 Mingo County "Rabbit Hole of Corruption" scandal. Thomas Esposito, the mayor of Logan, WV was on his fourth term as mayor when he was accused of buying votes to win office. Corruption enabled him to continue to get votes and more terms in the City Hall. Had he had been subjected to a term limit the whole scandal might have never occured. Governor Arch Moore was on his second term in 1975 when he was arrested for extortion. Governor Moore went on to have two more terms in office.
ReplyDeleteMembers of our state Legislature would have less time in office to develop financially beneficial commitments to lobbyists and other special interest groups, thereby undermining the threat of lobbyists being a primary influence on legislation. This is also another benefit of the term limit. Personally I feel that with term limits in West Virginia we would be able to remove the wealthy elitists that represent some of our Legislature and replace them with average West Virginians who are not removed from the problems of the average citizen. The wealthy often win elections due to heavy spending on campaigning and are able to keep these positions for the same reason.
http://restartcongress.org/revolution/arguments-for-term-limits/
http://www.wvencyclopedia.org/articles/1894
http://wvmetronews.com/2013/09/20/the-mingo-county-rabbit-hole-of-corruption/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101724.html
I agree with much of what my classmates have said and can understand both sides of the arguments; however, I believe it would be a good idea for West Virginia to have legislative term limits. From the chart listed in the question above, all 15 of the states that have term limits for their state legislators have over 50% of their population in agreement with these limits. Then further down the article you can see that term limitation was repealed by people who would lose power by it. That doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to me to not create term limits. There is even a website: https://termlimits.activistmanager.com/?KEY=a9b76fb9-1e10-4d41-91a7-916cfe2db137, which allows citizens to petition for their support of term limits. Also, according to this website, 83% of the American people support term limits. With term limits we can reduce corruption, create citizen legislators, increase diversity in the legislature, and create more competitive elections. In reply to a negative argument that says “With term limits we would lose experience, maturity and knowledge of the workings of Congress,” in lecture Berch mentioned how new members of Congress aren’t supposed to speak, and you’re supposed to listen to what older members of Congress have to say. His example was of Kennedy who came in with new ideas and presented them without respecting this unwritten rule, and he went on to be one of the most powerful people in our country. So without term limits, who knows what kind of people we are stunting from progression, and if there were term limits who knows what kind of ideas fresh, new members of Congress will come up with. I believe with term limits we can modernize and improve our state legislation.
ReplyDelete-Katherine Krause
I agree with majority of my classmates that term limits are a great idea for West Virginia. Not only would this approach limit corruption in the government, but it would also help the legislature stay up to date. Based on our recent journal entry assignment, West Virginia is in desperate need of legislators who are more diverse, open minded and up to date on political issues. The current legislature spent a lot of time arguing and wasting time on issues that didn’t even make the session’s deadline. According to the Chart of States with Term Limits that Dr. Berch posted, a majority of the 15 states have an eight-year limit. I, like my classmates, believe that this is enough time for a legislator to somewhat improve their state, gain name recognition and hopefully move up the political ladder. During lecture we discussed how most legislators take their position with the goal of moving forward in their political careers. However, if there is no term limit these legislators may spend their whole life in the same office. In my opinion, in order to move forward and advance in society we need new and fresh ideas, therefore we need new and fresh legislators. On the other hand, I also understand the argument that legislators who have been in office a long time are experienced and know their way around the law so they can get things done. However, I would argue that those experienced legislators need to help train and teach the new legislators. By working together the government can use the experience of the old legislators and the fresh ideas of the new legislators to really improve the state.
ReplyDeleteI believe that term limits are a good idea in West Virginia, or in any state for that matter, because they undoubtedly limit corruption. After holding an office for many consecutive years, it is clear that you would have seniority and your statements and decisions would hold a lot of weight. If a corrupt individual was in this situation, it would be very detrimental for any state. Officials that are under the aforementioned corrupt representative would likely not have nearly as much of a say as the more senior representative.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, term limits give the less wealthy and less funded candidates a fighting chance.Obviously, one of the most important campaigning tools is money. If someone with a lot of funding for their campaign, and great name recognition continues to run, then they will likely continue to win. Just because people recognize your name and you have a lot of money to fund your campaign, does not mean you should be elected. But that is how it often times works. Term limits can definitely combat these two issues in a proactive manner.
http://www.examiner.com/article/combating-corruption-by-imposing-term-limits
I believe that term limits should be implemented in West Virginia. Like Brad Chnault said, "We already have term limits, because we can vote out any politician at any time." Even though it isn't very easy to vote to remove someone from office we still have the power to do so. I agree with the prime example that limiting terms can help end corruption. I am a full fledged believer in citizens being represented by a candidate of their own choice and having the same person in office over and over again really goes against that. I believe that with no term limits the same, wealthy and well known legislator will hold keep office because he has the money and recourses to get his name out there every election. A career politician can become one sided and lose focus on the job at hand. Finally I agree with term limits because they allow opinions and new opportunities into our state.
ReplyDeleteAfter viewing the view-points of other classmates and other sources, I too agree that each state, West Virginia included should have term limits. Term limits in my opinion are a good idea because it helps bring new people with fresh ideas into office. When politicians are more interested in doing what it takes to get re-elected they then begin doing what he or she thinks is right to benefit themselves and not what is in the best interest of the state or people they serve, so with term limits in place, Congress will be more responsible toward their constituents because they will soon be constituents themselves and they too will have live under the laws they have created while in office. Some good points listed in some of the comments are that term limits cause a constant circulation of fresh blood and ideas, a constant flush out any corrupt politicians, and are more likely to keep the voters involved in the process & not get so comfy cozy and apathetic when it comes to local/state/congressional elections. Lastly term limits are a good idea for it also helps reduce the power of the bureaucracy and encourages the office holder's votes to be based more on principle.
ReplyDelete- Nicholas Smith
After viewing the articles, especially the Citizens for Term Limits one, West Virginia would benefit from term limits. Term limits would assure that the members of the Legislature would be doing their jobs correctly and quickly. It would also allow for new members with fresh, new ideas to be voted into office as well as give West Virginians more control over their legislature. In The Case Against Legislative Term Limits: Thomas Suddes article, it was mentioned that term limits were bad because members could/would not have real life experience in office. I think that NV has the right idea with the 12 year limit for surviving in the House and the Senate (shown in the chart article). This would allow for the best of both worlds so to say because members that are well liked to be voted back in to office many times accumulating experience as well as being able to dispose of members that were not liked or doing their jobs.
ReplyDeleteTerm limits would be very beneficial to the West Virginia state legislature due to the state's ever changing opportunities. The same legislators that are in the legislature now promoting the natural gas industry boom may not be the best politicians to have in power if say an environmental disaster was to occur because of this. Term limits not only prevent career politicians has many of my classmates and the termlimits.com article mentioned. They provide other, usually younger and more out-of-the-box thinking politicians to enter into the legislature. New approaches are what has evolved the state from an agriculture reliant state in the early to mid-1800s, a coal based state in the late 1800s and most of the 1900s, to a rapidly evolving natural gas state presently. The state took a large hit after the coal boom died down and the state is still recovering. It is difficult to say that those holding power for multiple terms after that were doing so purely based off of their individual fundraising as opposed to big business support or even stockpiling of that same support. Term limits in West Virginia may offer an opportunity for more rapid evolution in a state that consistently seems to be behind the curve of the rest of the nation on the state and local levels.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I can see how term limits do more good than bad. Corruption is always a big concern in politics and the longer someone is in a position of power the more likely they are to abuse that power. Term limits also provide opportunities for new, less popular, candidates. The candidates who are constantly reelected are often done so off of name recognition and popularity and not off their policies and accomplishments. People see a familiar name and go with that instead of putting in the time and effort to research candidates. I am however, a strong proponent of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” which is why I feel a truly stellar legislator who is well liked by both parties should not have to step down just to conform to a system. The system should have to conform to us. This is why I find it hard to place black and white standards on a world that is mostly grey. Perhaps some sort of exception could be made in the event that a legislator is well liked amongst both political parties and is already making substantial progress. When both parties can actually agree for the sake of the bigger picture, competition is not needed and actual progress can be made. I do however, reiterate that this would be the rare case and is why term limits should remain in effect until a better alternative is reached.
ReplyDeleteI can honestly see both sides for of why and why not term limits are a suitable idea for WV. I like the idea that others would have a chance to serve because I think everyone should have an opportunity. Additional ideas are always a plus as well as diversity. The only downfall that I can think of would be the one mentioned in The Case Against Legislative Term Limits that talked about how members would not have the real life experience in the office and needed for the job.
ReplyDeleteI think that legislative term limits should be imposed in West Virginia. In a state which is composed of moralistic and traditionalistic political culture, term limits could limit potential for corruption in the legislature. Only allowing legislators, for example, 8 year terms could perhaps allow a limited amount of corruption during the term but when the term is up, a legislator would no longer have influence as he would be ineligible for reelection. States that do not have legislative term limits allow legislators to have lasting influence over a long period of time, as it is possible an incumbent legislator would get reelected numerous times.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of diversity, electing different legislators could allow citizens to believe that a particular legislator can bring about certain changes they would desire. "If one legislator doesn't get the job done, elect someone who will" would be the thought process of those in favor of term limits. Obviously, having term limits means having more elections, which could lead to a variety of legislators gaining office positions.
As the chart provided by Dr. Berch illustrates, states that do have term limits saw a large percent of the population in favor of these limits. This demonstrates the fact that citizens are weary of legislators who are allowed to remain in office for an extended period of time, possibly because of the chance for corruption. This chart leads me to believe that West Virginians would also be in favor of limiting terms for these legislators.
As many others have stated, I also see the pros and cons to having term limits in West Virginia. First off, I think term limits are probably the better idea. Setting term limits allows more people to step up and express new ideas and opinions. I feel that if we didn't have term limits, legislators will focus more on power than serving their community to their best ability. Term limits would allow legislators to set goals and deadlines for their time in congress. One negative to term limits is that legislators do not necessarily get as much experience in congress and really good/reliable congress members could be booted out regardless of their contribution. Overall, I still think West Virginia would be better off with term limits because they promote diversity and fresh ideas within congress. Our nation is divided between republican/democrat, conservative/liberal so by limiting the amount of time one can spend in congress lets people move on from old traditional ideas to focusing on how they can better society now and in the future.
ReplyDeleteI think term limits overall are useful and can better a state’s government. Although they have not always worked out, like in Idaho, Massachusetts, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, they have proved to lower corruption and bring positive aspects to the government. Maine is a prime example of an area this works in, considering it has been since the early 1990’s. In Maine, the term limits law prevents any member of the Maine House and Senate to hold their position any longer than four consecutive two-year terms. I agree with this because it gives other people a fair chance of possibly becoming a part of the House or Senate rather than someone holding their position for 30 years. Maine’s term limits also allow Legislature to appoint Secretary of State, Treasurer, Attorney General, and State Auditor rather than those positions holding elections. This has obviously been working out for the state for multiple years and I feel this takes away a lot of stress that can be brought up during elections. I also think since the positions are being filled without elections, it may prevent a joe shmo nobody from getting into the government without appropriate training and qualifications. If Maine, along with 14 other states are able to maintain term limits I believe there has to be some good that comes from it and should be tried in West Virginia.
ReplyDeleteHowever, while agreeing with Maine’s term limits, Maine’s Governor Paul LePage objected the term limits and announced he wants to get rid of them just last week. He believes having term limits is causing the Legislature to be filled with young people who are passing laws that may cause problems in the long run. After reading about this, I get the feeling that this Governor wants things to stay the way they’ve always been and with term limits it’s hard to keep things a certain way for more than 8 years (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/LePage-Eliminate-Maine-Legislature-term-limits-5334625.php). I personally believe in the youth being the future and think if 60 year old men were holding all House and Senate positions and had been for 20 or 30 years, a lot of laws would not get passed due to them not embracing change. I think this is why West Virginia should consider term limits in hopes of bringing some sort of positive help to the state as a whole. I can relate to previous students’ comments, Rob Moseley, Whitney Norris, Brooke Duddie, Evan Hayon, and others, that term limits will bring more diversity to the Legislature which is something that could really benefit West Virginia. Overall I think this state should consider term limits for reasons relating to diversity, opportunity, and change. There are many arguments for both sides and many would probably disagree with term limits since less than ¼ of the United States use them but after I read into this more, I see why some states strive with them and I think they closely relate to West Virginia as well.
Both sides of the arguments have their points but I think having term limits for West Virginia wouldn't be a problem. Term limits reduce corruption and provide diversity in the legislature, which I think citizens would like to see more of. Name recognition is usually how an incumbent wins reelection, not by what they stand for. By having term limits, it gives voters a chance to read into politicians running and learn about their policies. Although term limits may have been shown to decrease voter turnout, term limits may give runners a chance to reach out to voters and increase awareness of issues and gain name recognition. In the “Chart of States with Term Limits,” it shows the two categories term limits can be divided by. Consecutive limits give a legislator a limit to serve a particular number of years in a chamber and once hitting the limit, he/she may run in another chamber or leave the legislature. But after a set period of time, the clock resets on the limit and allows the legislator to run for election in his/her original seat. In lifetime limits, once a legislator has served up to the limit, they may never run again for that office. I think West Virginia should use consecutive limits because it gives diversity in the legislature and reduce corruption. Without term limits, being allowed to remain in office for life will seek to give candidates reelection even long after they have accomplished all the legislative good they have given. Career politicians focus on building power influence rather than paying attention the voters who elected them. Term limits lead to desirable legislators that create more competitive elections. “Power is best used when it changes hands over time in order to allow for dynamic new solutions to be mooted in a changing world.”
ReplyDeleteI think the term limit is both a good and a bad thing when it comes to the legislature, it just works its way out to make it good and bad because they have served for many years for multiple terms, but some will not use new ideas and diversity that can be brought to help the state out. With that being said, it could help move the bills faster than normal or it could take a while for them to move the bills, which can lead it to be a downfall. Serving a term over a year on the legislature might be able to continue their work and vote on whatever bills they feel is best even if it is controversial. They have the power to do more because they have been there longer and they would have more of a say rather than someone new. Serving on the state legislature should allow people to move on and continue with what they want to do, and maybe in a way make the legislature a little bit more diverse.
ReplyDeleteI can see both positive and negative effects of term limits. Positive being that if most of the public agrees with everything that a specific legislator stands for and he/she is loyal to the people i agree that he/she should be able to keep running for office because the public agrees to it. On the other hand i also think it is indeed a good idea for other candidates to receive a chance to run for office because, as many of my classmates have pointed out, it brings diversity as well as new issues to the table that may have not been addressed before hand. Not having term limits can also pose a negative threat because of the issue of power hunger, if a legislator is in office for such a long period of time, naturally, he will start taking advantage of it and it is possible for that power to go to someones head, that is how corruption happens. I can see negative and positive arguments for both sides.
ReplyDeleteI like most of my classmates am pretty neutral on this subject. I do believe that term limits would be a very good thing to have for certain candidates because of the corruption that they might be causing. But if the legislator is performing his duties ethically and providing positive outcomes then who are we to tell him/her that they cannot run again for another term. The term limits also have another benefit that allows a new and upcoming generation to enter the house, with new ideas that would be better for todays society. So I personally believe that term limits for West Virginia could be fairly beneficial, this state is not exactly economically booming and it never really has been. West Virginia was very reluctant on the coal industry and it still is but it will eventually come to an end, its time for new ideas on how this state can flourish. One other reason that term limits are a good thing is because in traditionalistic states that tend to have the same candidate running time and time again it gives a fair chance to anyone else that thinks they can make a difference.
ReplyDelete-Brendan Durkee
I certainly see valid arguments on both sides of this issue. I believe that there is no need for term limits. If a politician is truly good at their job and the voters in that state like them then there should be no reason to make them leave office. It would be unfair that a more qualified and better liked candidate cannot run just because they have already been in office for too long. in theory there should be no need for term limits because if a politician is not liked or not doing their job they will not be reelected. the article that was in favor of term limits argued that it was not that simple. many incumbents have too large of an advantage over new, unknown candidates. I do see that as a problem but think that other steps can be taken rather than limiting terms. Gerrymandering for example does not seem completely fair to me. There should be a more fair and equal way to divide up districts instead of politicians forming them as they please to get reelected. I also think that incumbents have an unfair advantage with their ability to raise more money through things like PACs. there should be some types of rules in play to level the playing field.
ReplyDeleteAs everyone has basically said, I too agree with limiting terms in West Virginia. I have come across instances where I would like a person to run longer than the normal amount of time given, but I can see why it is a good, beneficial thing. If there is a corrupt legislator and everyone loves him anyway, the corruption will continue until someone better comes along. This can be stopped through limiting the time he has in office. His corruption has the ability to stop. With the term limits, bureaucracy can also be controlled. With limited terms, people would be wanting these offices because they want to see change and serve, not because they would want to seek power. Through only a few terms, members cannot seek all that much power, and if they do, it will eventually end anyway. So in all, I agree that term limits should exist in West Virginia.
ReplyDeleteIn the grand scheme of things, I believe that term limits are necessary to the functionality of government. In particular, I agree with a number of my classmates who hinted at the prevalence of corruption that is associated with longer-termed politicians. Going along with this ideal, I think that term limits should apply to members of the West Virginia State Legislature. However, I could foresee some problems occurring with this ever-changing system. Politicians who are actively pushing for new laws or mandates to take effect may have to rush their legislation in order to hopefully gain its approval, or even worse, their term could expire before getting to present their legislation to their counterparts. Typically, re-election policies such as the one we're writing about do not apply to most candidates. It is only when candidates like Robert C. Byrd in the West Virginia Senate win re-election a countless number of times that term limits should heavily be considered. Think about it in a business sense: Byrd essentially developed a monopoly on his Senate seat, eliminating the threat of competition during election season. I definitely believe that this is a proper example of why term limits should always be in effect, similar to the President's two-term restriction. However, I can also see the justification that is the popular vote of the people, continuing to elect incumbents... While this system may not be the most fair to other political candidates, maybe the old saying is, in fact, true: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
ReplyDeleteTo further clarify my point concerning the Robert C. Byrd example: I believe that if a politician is practically guaranteed to win his or her re-election, the quality of their work and/or their overall job dedication could suffer. I feel that competition, in any job, is good for the employee as it continually serves as motivation to succeed. Without this constant pressure to perform, I could easily see a lawmaker becoming complacent in their responsibilities and potentially "free-riding" to re-election. Also, I am a proponent of having a "breath of fresh air" every once in awhile. Our government functions the best when ideas are creatively bounced off of one another until a fitting compromise is agreed upon. In order to achieve ideals of the highest quality, I think that members need to sporadically come and go, replacing those that are no longer thinking progressively. Once again though, this decision should be a democratic one with the people having the final say (or vote).
DeleteIn order to preserve perspective I think it is exceedingly important to not from the beginning that term limits or lack thereof each contain pros and cons. That being said, term limits make many claims that ensure equal opportunity and reinforce democracy, while those who are not in favor of term limits argue that it is a total breach of democracy. Term limits were brought about, like many political institutions, with the best of intentions but as always there are loop holes and ways to abuse the system which is what we have witnessed over the years. New York has the lowest turn over rate in their legislation, is it because all the legislators are that good at their job? No. It is because they are paid handsomely and there may be a level of corruption that has allowed them to keep their seats. Term limits have thus far not prevented New York's dominated legislation. Alabama on the other hand represents a legislation that no one wants to go near. With the low pay and alot of responsibilty, this state is dying for people to represent them. As Francis Grubar pointed out, the use of term limits is unique to each state. What would be beneficial to West Virginia may not be in the best interest of Oregon. There is not much diversity in West Virginia to be had but there is more opporunity for better representation in other states. Each state should develop their own term limits that speaks to their strengths.
ReplyDeleteI agree with term limits. I think people who continue to serve for as long as they want will keep the same old ideas through the years. If there are term limits then new people can join the legislature with new ideas. Those new ideas could be the change that WV needs. I can also see how people wouldn't want term limits when it comes to maturity in the legislature. I know there are some legislators who have been in the legislature for years and have done a great job and know how the system works. Although, to me term limits are good. If the president can only serve two terms thats how it should be for all of the government.
ReplyDeleteTerm limits are necessary. If a legislator does do a not so good job in office, then once their term is over the people can vote on someone who is more capable. Many of the times, people vote for legislators because of what party they belong to. Just because the person you want in office is in the party you favor, it doesn't mean that the legislator will truly make a difference.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOther members have also said this, but I do not see a problem with having term limits. I think they would be very beneficial and improve West Virginias legislature. I think that without term limits it could be easier for a certain group to gain control of the legislature and overall dominate in the election, if this were the case then we would be having one sided rules and regulations that could overall not benefit the entire population. I also think that if one person has enough support he/she could keep getting reelected which would prevent anyone else from winning, which would also prevent new viewpoint and ideas to be exposed.I agree with my classmates that term limits prevent corruption and I do think we should have them. Overall I think that term limits would affect the state of West Virginia positively.
ReplyDeleteI believe term limits for state legislatures are necessary. Limiting the time somebody has in office better prevents corruption and it provides a chance for new people to be elected who could potentially be more productive than the person currently in office, even if they may not be as popular. Politics are constantly changing and unexpected events are always happening so having elections every 4 years would be fair to the people in that state. It should be up to state citizens to allow a legislature back for another 4 years. 8 years is a lot of time to make a difference but anything more than that is overkill in my opinion. West Virginia would benefit from having new faces in it's legislature because with new people, come new and usually better ideas. Having a long term legislature could mean having an unmotivated person in office who can't get important things accomplished anymore.
ReplyDeleteI think that having term limits would not be a bad thing mainly because it would lessen the chances of having a person consume full power within their legislative position and it would also add variety to the legislative offices. The fresh elected official would have a different outlook on political issues and how they could do their job. On the other hand, having a person in office for more years would mean that they would know more about how the position works and would be more involved with the public. But they may get lazy with the position as it would be repetitive for them. I do still agree that these people should serve a certain amount of years for their term but should always be re-elected. This would show that they are good for their position and should stay in power.The public would also obviously be in their favor as they would be voting and their fellow peers as well. In addition, allowing them to stay by moving up to a new position after their term would show growth and allow them to grow with better skills to lead the legislature. That is why after a certain amount of years people should be allowed to proceed up the poll depending on the work they have accomplished during their term. West Virginia should be open to new ideas and this would help by allowing new people to come into office to bring in new ideas of better ways to change the state. Moving in a new direction will bring a positive new change for the state. These new elected officials would probably have new views on societal issues such as Gay Marriage and possibly better ideas on how to help the roads in West Virginia. Instead of focusing on maintaining laws, our officials should focus on ways to better them for the people of WV. That is why it would be good to have a rotation process with the term limitation. It would bring a fresh start to the state which will be beneficial in the end.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that term limits should not be in place for our state legislature. Yes, I understand that term limits help eliminate corruption, but they also help eliminate legislatures who maybe one of the best in their position. If someone in office is really making a difference, and has been doing what's best for their state, then why eliminate them. It is up to the voters to see the results of each politician and decide if they should continue on as legislators. Term limits eliminate those who have been voted into office and are continuing to make change, there must be a reason they keep getting reelected.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that there should be term limits in WV. I consider it an advantage to other states who have to find a new representative every so many years. It gives respect to our state having veterans in office and the new political players having to go through them to maybe get something done.
ReplyDeleteAs a resident of West Virginia, I am a strong supporter of limiting terms for legislative representatives. There have been some members in the past who have not done much but can run again and get re-elected as many times as they can. The state legislature is always in need of fresh ideas and having older people who have been in office for decades doesn't help the state much. Having new people in the legislature would not only bring in new and fresh ideas, it would help the state as a whole build and grow. With society changing rapidly, like Eleina mentioned, new issues could be addressed that the older legislative people may not have much to say about or have closed-minds about.
ReplyDelete--Mara Regling
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI for one think term limits are a smart thing to have installed. There's no use in having person or a number of persons serve time that is more than they need to get their voice through. It sets a limit on the amount of substantial power one is able to impose on their respective branch of government, and with term limits, others get a chance to have their voice and policies be heard and put into action. Like others have said, it does very well in limiting corruption because people cannot exert too much influence over time by staying in office for so long. The only negative thing I can see from these term limits is that it would eliminate a lot of veteran presence in the legislature, which would not bode well for new members and for the overall smooth running of the legislature as a whole. But otherwise, term limits are a smart, sensible, and necessary part of the legislature and state government in general and keeps the opinions, views, and policies fresh and always forthcoming without allowing one bad member to retain his or her office
ReplyDeleteI believe that there should not be term limits in our state. As we learned in class, seniority plays a big part in the legislature and if there are term limits, legislators will never obtain that seniority. i do like that there are 2 and 4 year terms though because if there is corruption or someone who is not a good legislator, they can be voted out by the general population. If someone does not get voted out of the legislature, and are doing very well at their job, their is no reason to limit the amount of time that they are able to be in office.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there should not be term limits in our state. As we learned in class, seniority plays a big part in the legislature and if there are term limits, legislators will never obtain that seniority. i do like that there are 2 and 4 year terms though because if there is corruption or someone who is not a good legislator, they can be voted out by the general population. If someone does not get voted out of the legislature, and are doing very well at their job, their is no reason to limit the amount of time that they are able to be in office.
ReplyDeleteI think that term limits make sense for our state as well as all states. If the elected officials are constant for up to eight years, the ways of the legislator may not make much progress. When limits are placed on the terms of office, they allow for the legislator to have an updated stance on the governing in that state. The limits do help eliminate corruption and create a fair balance in the elections. When someone had been in office for so many years, odds are that the public will vote mostly based on name recognition or a sense of loyalty to that legislature, and not based on their actually confidence in that legislator. Eight years is a long time to allow someone to accomplish their original platform goals, however, if they are not banking on a full eight years, their time is limited and the will accomplish more in a shorter amount of time. I understand there are positives and negatives to both, but legislators are elected they became a part of the "relay" that will lead them to the end of their term, fulfilling their original goals and paving the way for the next elected official.
ReplyDeleteI can understand both sides of the argument. I can understand why legislatures and the public would be against term limits. If members of government want to make a career out of being in the legislature, they should be allowed to. Especially if the legislatures want to provide change, they would probably want to be around to witness that change and fulfill their personal agendas of what they want accomplished while they're in office.
ReplyDeleteI can also see people being against term limits. Some people would argue that our founding fathers did not have the intention of a position in government being someone's career. They saw it as a public service that is supposed to be short lived. This way no one could have a long term agenda and serving would be for the benefit of the public. However, even if you are making a career out of serving in the legislatures, you could still be working for the good of the public and not just concerned about your own agenda.
I don't think there should be term limits for members of the state legislature in West Virginia. I think that by creating term limits for legislatures, it will open chances for politicians to be forced out of office despite doing a good job in his/her position. If a legislature is succeeding with his goals, and continues to have the support of the public, i think they should be allowed to continue serving without term limits. Its up to the voters in the state to elect who they see fits the job the best, Term limits do not help qualification of legislatures, if anything they open opportunities for less qualified candidates to gain office and force legislatures who may be doing a good job, out of office because of the amount of years he/she has served
ReplyDeleteI believe there should be term limits. There is more chance given to more people to serve as a state legislature. I believe people who have been serving for a long time can benefit the legislature more. However, I believe diversity is important. Bringing in new faces into terms is great because there will be fresh ideas and not the same one every time. Changing is up is important. In my opinion, popularity should not be a factor when picking people to stay in term longer. For instance, President Obama's presidency should not have been extended to a second term. I believe two terms is ok but not when someone fails consistently as a president. I believe there should be rules to having your term extended. Term limits allow for change especially when change is necessary.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletealthough I can understand where both sides of this argument come from, I do not necessarily think there should be term limits for members of the state legislature in West Virginia. It serves a sense of respect for West Virginia by having people in office who know what they are doing and have much knowledge on what they are dealing with.
ReplyDeleteI believe that term limits, in any state, but especially West Virginia are a negative idea. To limit a governor based on how many years they can serve seems almost pointless to me. If a governor is in office and is implementing positive change and is popular, why should we limit that? A governor should be allowed to stay in office for as long as the people of the state wish to allow them to be there. Specifically, in West Virginia, positive change is needed and if a governor was able to bring forth that, should we really limit that?
ReplyDeleteAccording to RestartCongress.org, term limits make for the governors to be more responsible and feel as if they only have a certain amount of time in which they can achieve what they are attempting to implement. I see this as nothing more than an excuse. Governors should be implementing what they wish to be done everyday, or at least making efforts to do so, and if they need a time limit in order to be effective, have we chosen the right person to be in power in the first place?
As mentioned by my classmate, Louis Duszynski, term limits will force good governors out of power. And why?
I believe that the idea of term limits is useless and just a way for the government to have more control than the people. If the people feel someone needs took out of power, then the people will vote them out of office.
As previously stated by my classmates, term limits can have pros and cons. The pros are this: other people have an opportunity to step in and bring fresh ideas to the legislature, current legislators are held accountable for their actions/decisions during the time they served, and chosen legislators can change and evolve to keep up with the times. A major con is that, with a time limit, some bills or programs put into effect during the said legislator's term may not have a chance to fully take off or benefit the people in that single term. It could take several terms, and also adjustments and improvements. A new legislator may not have the same understanding, or may not agree with the program altogether, and it would be difficult to make forward progress.
ReplyDelete