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