Comments on: Why Conservatives Should Be Against Term Limits

By: david.beav

david.beav — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:50:47 +0000

You touched on the real issue: the amount of power that one person could build if they stuck around long enough and collected enough IOUs. Willie was the most powerful person in the state, and the only people who had a vote in that were his constitutents in San Francisco. Lockyer and Kopp were very influential, but if voters outside their districts didn’t like their approach to their policy areas, we could do nothing about it.

A similar example in DC was John Dingell’s (rep from Detroit auto industry) lock on transportation policy for many years.

Power corrupts. Until someone proposes a way to limit legislators’ terms as chair of powerful committees or speaker or etc., term limits is our only option to restrict that.

By: peanutbutter

peanutbutter — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:00:52 +0000

thing of it is, we’ve ALWAYS had term limits…they’re called VOTERS. if voters are interested participants, good politicians stay and bad ones go.

i do grant that that’s a largish IF, but nevertheless the point remains…

By: akjacobson

akjacobson — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:55:21 +0000

I completely agree with Mr. Naylor and Evan — term limits for an executive position is fine, but not for a legislature — it allows the bureaucracy to control the inexperienced legislature. Elections are there to fix those who stay around without being useful.

By: www.camod.org

www.camod.org — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:58:43 +0000

As bad of an idea as a part-time legislature in California.

By: mmunson

mmunson — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:13:01 +0000

I would support an amendment stating that you can not serve more than 3 consecutive terms in the state assembly and 2 consecutive terms in the senate. However you could come back after the next term if the people want you back in, or come back in 10 or 15 years so institutional experience could still be had. Its term limits, but better.