Buddy...
where it's been tried, recent academic studies seem to indicate that Lobbyists gained even greater influence, and there doesn't seem to be a correlation to lower spending.
2) many seem to renege on their promises to retire.
Show me where term limits have actually worked... and then I'll get interested again.
Where did you get your information? Take a look at this:
Assessing the Term Limits Experiment
California and Beyond
by Patrick Basham
Executive Summary
The term limits movement is one of the most successful grassroots political efforts in U.S. history. From 1990 to 1995 legislative term limits passed in 18 states with an average of 68 percent voter support. By the end of 2000 those term limits had affected more than 700 legislative seats. Term limits were intended to end careerism among state legislators. Academic and other research on the effects of term limits suggests that they have substantially attained that goal. Current research supports the following conclusions:
Term limits remain popular with state electorates long after their introduction.
Term limits stimulate electoral competition in state legislative elections.
Term limits enable nontraditional candidates to run for seats in state legislatures. Female, Hispanic-American, and Asian-American candidates find it easier to enter term-limited legislatures than non-term-limited bodies. The record is more mixed for African Americans.
Term limits weaken seniority systems in state legislatures.
Term limits tend to weaken the leadership of a state legislature.
Term limits have not strengthened interest groups, state bureaucracies, or legislative staffs as predicted by critics of term limits.
Some evidence suggests that term limits foster public policies compatible with limited government.
cato.org
And this:
What Term Limits Do That Ordinary Voting Cannot
by Einer Elhauge
Executive Summary
"We already have term limits; they're called elections. So why don't we just throw the bums out?" Instead, voters simultaneously cast their ballots for senior incumbents and for term limits. They do so for two primary reasons: seniority clout and barriers to entry. No district wants to unilaterally cede the power it has, and there may be no viable alternative on the ballot. All districts have to collectively agree to turn out their senior incumbents to solve the collective problem of unrepresentative legislators.
Term limits further important values of democratic equality and freedom. Term limits reduce inequalities in legislative power across districts and over time. More important, term limits make democratic choice far freer. Term limits solve a collective action problem and lessen the seniority penalty that makes it difficult for districts to oust ideologically unsatisfactory incumbents. And term limits reduce barriers to entry that discourage challengers and thus limit ballot options. Any furthering of those values furthers core democratic objectives.
Term limits are particularly vital at a time when 99 percent of congressional incumbents who have spent more than six years in office are reelected.
The arguments against term limits, while not illogical, turn out to be so weak in fact or mixed in theory that none can rebut the strong argument that term limits will enhance the ability of electorates to have their views represented by their elected officials.
cato.org
Better yet, I'll let you follow the links here:
cato.org
Every one of these studies discusses the advantages of term limits.
Diz- |
