Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: limiting congressional (and other) terms
Message-ID: <1137@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 13-Oct-84 16:31:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: dciem.1137
Posted: Sat Oct 13 16:31:05 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Oct-84 18:41:26 EDT
References: <2729@ucbcad.UUCP>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 24

===============
I can think of a few reasons why limiting congressional terms might have bad
effects -- first, it would prevent those people who actually have some talent
at running the country from really getting work done, and second, if most
of the people in congress weren't worrying about re-election, they would be
even more irresponsible than they are now -- the one thing that keeps them
in line is the fact that if they act too badly they won't get re-elected
(and maybe in a few cases, a real desire to do things properly).
===============
How about a middle ground?  Prohibit anyone from succeeding him/herself,
but permit re-election the following time around.  The problem with
long reigns is that the incumbent always has an advantage in being
re-elected, not only because of portk-barreling, but also because
of public visibility.  If the next time he/she could be elected was
a couple of years away, the odds would be better balanced in favour
of good performance being a factor for the voters. (I don't know
what the candidates would do in the intervening years -- perhaps
there should be a kind of pension to support people for one term
for each term they serve).
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt