Term Limits

[alaskaguy]

This concern can be largely addressed by increased transparency with regard to things like earmarks and an active pursuit of the issue by outside groups. This would have the further effect of actually doing something about spending.

Also, I again have to ask if you have a better method for deciding committee chairs than seniority.

Most agree that senior legislators have far more power than junior legislators ("senior clout"). What strikes most as surprising is that this is not because seniority leads to better committee assignments. Length of tenure, not formal position has been found to be the main source of legislative power. Therefore, the method used to select committee chairs does not appreciably reduce "seniority clout."

Source: Congressional Careers, Contours of Life In the U.S. House of Representatives, John R. Hibbing, pp. 162-165.

[Kyle]

Most agree that senior legislators have far more power than junior legislators ("senior clout"). What strikes most as surprising is that this is not because seniority leads to better committee assignments. Length of tenure, not formal position has been found to be the main source of legislative power. Therefore, the method used to select committee chairs does not appreciably reduce "seniority clout."

Source: Congressional Careers, Contours of Life In the U.S. House of Representatives, John R. Hibbing, pp. 162-165.

I haven't gone to the trouble to look up your source, so I'll ask you, Why do senior members of congress have more power? Here are a few of my guesses and responses:

1. They get better committee assignments.
How else do you propose to decide who does what?

2. They are experienced and know what the heck is going on.
Is this not a valid reason for them to have more power?

3. They know more people.
Again, this seems to be a valid reason to have more power.

4. They have more clout with their respective party.
Maybe an argument here. However, there will always be party bosses that have a great deal of control over things.

I think the value of institutional knowledge is rather underrated by most proponents of term limits. Having been a part of a group without much if any institutional memory, the ISU Governments of the Student Body, I can attest to this. Our senior members were often more insightful and productive due to their experience. They remembered things like how the Crew team's budget was tight because we had just bought them a $26,000 boat the year before, how some organizations made it a habit of poorly planning come budget time and then coming later in the year to ask for more funds, or why a certain bylaws said what they did. Basically, the only source of institutional memory for GSB was our office manager. While I was there I stumbled upon $3,000 we had in an account that nobody even knew about. It had been put into that account prior to the arrival of our office manager.

[alaskaguy]

Your analyis is fairly accurate. According to the paper I referenced, the reason senior members have more power is due to contacts, an established pattern of dealing with other legislators, and more familiarity with legislative procedure.

In any event there are emperical studies that support that "senior clout" is significantly reduced when term limits are enacted. Most of the studies focus on the California legislature.

[Cyclonepride]

I have another solution. How about we put shock collars on our congress people, and have them wired to the internet, so that every time they do something fishy, unethical or with disregard to public opinion, we could shock them. That is freedom in action if you ask me.

[alaskaguy]

I haven't gone to the trouble to look up your source, so I'll ask you, Why do senior members of congress have more power? Here are a few of my guesses and responses:

1. They get better committee assignments.
How else do you propose to decide who does what?

2. They are experienced and know what the heck is going on.
Is this not a valid reason for them to have more power?

3. They know more people.
Again, this seems to be a valid reason to have more power.

4. They have more clout with their respective party.
Maybe an argument here. However, there will always be party bosses that have a great deal of control over things.

I think the value of institutional knowledge is rather underrated by most proponents of term limits. Having been a part of a group without much if any institutional memory, the ISU Governments of the Student Body, I can attest to this. Our senior members were often more insightful and productive due to their experience. They remembered things like how the Crew team's budget was tight because we had just bought them a $26,000 boat the year before, how some organizations made it a habit of poorly planning come budget time and then coming later in the year to ask for more funds, or why a certain bylaws said what they did. Basically, the only source of institutional memory for GSB was our office manager. While I was there I stumbled upon $3,000 we had in an account that nobody even knew about. It had been put into that account prior to the arrival of our office manager.

Experience certainly is a virtue. However, I assume the ISU Student Government respresentatives serve one year terms and that the senior reps have been in office three years or less. This is a far different situation than it is in the U.S. Senate where Senators are elected for a six year term. Heck, it is even a far different situaion than what exists in either the House or the Senate since many of our legislators serve 20 plus years.

In terms of any loss of experience, it is important to define what sort of experience you would be concerned about losing. Since any year spent in government is a year not spent outside it, the real claim that experience in government is preferable to experience outside it? Is it?

I support term limits (for the U.S. Congress) because I see them furthering democratic equality. They do this by reducing legislative power across districts. Term limits diminish the advantages of seniority. Seniority makes it difficult to oust ideological unsatisfactory incumbents. In doing all this term limits would make our election choices far "freer."

[pcyclonatrist]

Government corruption is caused mainly by the long term retention of power ( most politicians being extremely human human beings and not saints). The long term retention of power in politics is mainly due to the monetary advantage incumbents have and gerrymandering. The question is how can we diminish the likelihood of long term retention of power in government?

We have found that campaign finance reform doesn't work because political cash is too fungible. Term limits seems to be the next best way to reduce corruption in government.
Another alternative might be to pass a law requiring all congressional districts to have 4 sides of equal length, the only exception being a side that lies on a state boundary.

[alaskaguy]

Government corruption is caused mainly by the long term retention of power ( most politicians being extremely human human beings and not saints). The long term retention of power in politics is mainly due to the monetary advantage incumbents have and gerrymandering. The question is how can we diminish the likelihood of long term retention of power in government?

We have found that campaign finance reform doesn't work because political cash is too fungible. Term limits seems to be the next best way to reduce corruption in government.
Another alternative might be to pass a law requiring all congressional districts to have 4 sides of equal length, the only exception being a side that lies on a state boundary.

Huh? Is the law that you are advocating (requiring all congressional districts to have four sides of equal length) a measure to deal with gerrymandering?

[pcyclonatrist]

Yes. Gerrymandering wouldn't be impossible but it would be much more difficult to implement.

[herbiedoobie]

Unfortunately, term limits would give lifetime bureaucrats even MORE power to influence policy. Some of the worst aspects of our government come to us courtesy of lifetime government employee(s).

Who do you think actually WRITES the laws, and administers the programs?

[alaskaguy]

Unfortunately, term limits would give lifetime bureaucrats even MORE power to influence policy. Some of the worst aspects of our government come to us courtesy of lifetime government employee(s).

Who do you think actually WRITES the laws, and administers the programs?

You are assuming that the staff influence decreases over time. The opposite is the more likely case. Newcomer legislators are more likely to act on principle and shake things up against staff and bureaucratic advice.

I also don't buy that there would be a shift in power to the executive branch if term limits were adopted. Under term limits legislators will at least have nongovernmental expertise or will likely be career politicians rotating through different offices who have developed just as much expertise as they would have had without term limits.

[iceclone]

You are assuming that the staff influence decreases over time. The opposite is the more likely case. Newcomer legislators are more likely to act on principle and shake things up against staff and bureaucratic advice.

I also don't buy that there would be a shift in power to the executive branch if term limits were adopted. Under term limits legislators will at least have nongovernmental expertise or will likely be career politicians rotating through different offices who have developed just as much expertise as they would have had without term limits.

On a related note ... Have any of you seen the "Yes, Minister" or the follow-up "Yes, Prime Minister" series? It is a satirical British comedy dealing with the balance of power between the bureaucrats and their "political masters". It is very dry and sarcastic humor, but I would think anyone posting in a thread like this would find it very funny (and sometimes almost too insightful about how government works).

[iceclone]

Yes. Gerrymandering wouldn't be impossible but it would be much more difficult to implement.

I agree that gerrymandering is a problem, but it would not be mathematically possible to satisfy the four equal side constraints and at the same time satisfy the population distribution constraints. Indeed, coming up with a simple set of constraints to prevent gerrymandering is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Note that I'm not saying that its impossible to devise an algorithm to determine voting districts fairly - that is actually rather simple. It is, however, probably impossible to come up with constraints that are such that (a) they can be met, and (b) unscrupulous people cannot find unfair ways to meet them.

[alaskaguy]

On a related note ... Have any of you seen the "Yes, Minister" or the follow-up "Yes, Prime Minister" series? It is a satirical British comedy dealing with the balance of power between the bureaucrats and their "political masters". It is very dry and sarcastic humor, but I would think anyone posting in a thread like this would find it very funny (and sometimes almost too insightful about how government works).

No, I hadn't even heard of the "Yes, Prime Minister" series before you mentioned it. However, that is not surprising because I watch very little television. Nevertheless, I'll follow up on your recommendation and watch an episode.

[isufbcurt]

One example is the rules regarding where sex offenders can live in Iowa. There was one offense that got everyone's attention, so the legislature had to hurry up and pass something so that they looked like they were addressing the problem and being tough on offenders. So, what we end up with is a feel-good law that has major enforcement problems and is therefore opposed by law enforcement, which has caused us to lose track of many offenders, and which has not been shown to in any way prevent the harm it was supposed to address. But... if you vote against it you love pedophiles, so it passed easily.

Thanks that is a great example!!!!! There definately needs to be different classes of sex offenders.

[pcyclonatrist]

I agree that gerrymandering is a problem, but it would not be mathematically possible to satisfy the four equal side constraints and at the same time satisfy the population distribution constraints. Indeed, coming up with a simple set of constraints to prevent gerrymandering is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Note that I'm not saying that its impossible to devise an algorithm to determine voting districts fairly - that is actually rather simple. It is, however, probably impossible to come up with constraints that are such that (a) they can be met, and (b) unscrupulous people cannot find unfair ways to meet them.

Your right about the 4 equal length boundaries being unworkable. But you could use the shortest-splitline algorithm to produce districts with the fewest number of straight sides, excluding state boundaries. Is this one of the simple algorithms you were referring to? The only thing that would prevent this solution is the fact that almost no one would favor it.