Well, let us face the fact that in the United States we have a system that is supposed to be self-correcting with the voting system. Any person of the age of 18 who is a citizen, regardless of religious views, party affiliation, race or gender has the right to vote after going through a registration. This system depends upon the participation of the citizens to vote whenever they can. When things aren’t working out the people have the opportunity to vote out inept leaders, but if the people do not vote then things don’t get corrected.
Some blame it on how the system on making registration too difficult. In some states there were rules that a person wanting to vote in an upcoming election had to register three months before the elections but a law passed said that no state may make registration laws restricting time to register more than 30 days before the election. So states that have a traditional view on society usually have a law that says a person must register to vote 30 days before the elections.
Some states that have moralistic views will allow voters to register at the polling places, or states like North Dakota have absolutely no registration laws. A person can go to the poll with a photo ID and vote. In the 90s the Clinton administration made it easier for people to vote by passing the National Voter Registration Act in 1993, or the Motor Voter Act. Whenever someone applied for welfare, they are given a voter registration form. Whenever someone got a driver’s license, or renewed license, they were given a voter registration form.
So, regardless of legislation there is no reason why people can’t vote yet they don’t. Remember that the key to the success of our system is the participation of the people. Unhappy people who don’t vote are as much the problem as those that continue to elect the same people. Incumbents that serve for decades continue to do what they do and think what they think because they either believe that they are doing the will of the people that are obviously happy and re-electing them or they know that the people won’t vote them out. Giving them the benefit of the doubt let’s say that career politicians believe they are doing right by the people. The problem is that the ideas in politics need to change with time and career politicians don’t change thinking, they continue to do the same thing over and over again. Term limits would circulate ideas and politicians would know that they have limited amount of time to do their job.
Other countries around the world, especially in Western Europe do not have term limits on anyone but their presidents. Their parliaments have not term limits. Some might ask, why do we need them but no one really brings it up in these countries. Well parliament sessions don’t have a set time like we do. A session can last 2 months in one year or it can last from election to election. Also we have to go back to key point, voter turnout. In Italy’s last three elections 79%, 82%, and 84% of the voting age population turned out to vote. In Germany it was 72%, 73%, and 75% of the voting age population turned out. In the United States 37%, 56%, and 35% of the voting age population turned out to vote. The 56% percent was a presidential election with a popular opponent and an extremely unpopular incumbent.
I would like to point out where I got these numbers. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
What are Term Limits and Their History in America
What are term limits? Term limits in the basic form are things like the amount of years that a public official will be in office. Term limits have been around since the time of ancient Greece. In Athens no man could serve on the council for consecutive terms of a single year. In Rome certain magistrates could not opt for re-election until a certain number of years had passed.
There are two separate kinds of terms: consecutive or lifetime. These two categories are pretty much what they sound like.
Consecutive term limits are limits that are set on the consecutive number of terms that can be served. Some public officials may hold office for two consecutive terms and then take a term period off and then are eligible for re-election for that position and two more consecutive terms.
Lifetime term limits are limits that say there are only a certain amount of terms that an official can hold for a specific position. Example: a person elected to the presidency of the United States can serve that term and only one more term, not matter when he is re-elected, for his or her lifetime.
At one point in American there were term limits imposed on the members of Congress. Under the advice of Thomas Jefferson the fifth article in the Articles of Confederation stated “no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years.” In 1989 when the congress convened in Philadelphia to ratify the Constitution, they left out the term limits from the Articles of Confederation.
Founding Fathers such as Washington, Mason, Franklin, and Jefferson favored terms limits because they feared that re-election of public officials for an unknown amount of time would lead to a similar scenario of rule of that of the British Parliament.
Washington setting his own traditional term limits for the presidency was to show that this nation would not have the same person in power for an unlimited amount of time.
But, as we think of them now, term limits are restrictions on the number of terms or number of consecutive terms that a public official can hold.
There are two separate kinds of terms: consecutive or lifetime. These two categories are pretty much what they sound like.
Consecutive term limits are limits that are set on the consecutive number of terms that can be served. Some public officials may hold office for two consecutive terms and then take a term period off and then are eligible for re-election for that position and two more consecutive terms.
Lifetime term limits are limits that say there are only a certain amount of terms that an official can hold for a specific position. Example: a person elected to the presidency of the United States can serve that term and only one more term, not matter when he is re-elected, for his or her lifetime.
At one point in American there were term limits imposed on the members of Congress. Under the advice of Thomas Jefferson the fifth article in the Articles of Confederation stated “no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years.” In 1989 when the congress convened in Philadelphia to ratify the Constitution, they left out the term limits from the Articles of Confederation.
Founding Fathers such as Washington, Mason, Franklin, and Jefferson favored terms limits because they feared that re-election of public officials for an unknown amount of time would lead to a similar scenario of rule of that of the British Parliament.
Washington setting his own traditional term limits for the presidency was to show that this nation would not have the same person in power for an unlimited amount of time.
But, as we think of them now, term limits are restrictions on the number of terms or number of consecutive terms that a public official can hold.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Why Now?
In the words of George Mason, “nothing can be so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation (of its members)."
Elections were generally thought to be the natural way of deciding if legislators deserved to continue their term in office, and it used to be true when it was a hassle to travel to Washington D.C., be away from family and home, and receive a very low pay for long hard work.
Over the years the legislators have increased their salary time and time again it make it a pretty easy job, but mind you that they did not get rich by holding office. Most of those who are rich were rich before they were elected to office.
The problem is that members of the legislature have convinced the American people that the only way that they can make any difference in governing the nation is to have long careers. The people don’t want to have their states to lose the power they wield with senior senators who head boards and committees.
But a study by a Harvard Law professor Einer Elhauge in 1998 published by the CATO Institue argued that term limits could simplify the legislative body and how it functions.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa328.pdf
The next election for members of the House of Representatives and Senate will be held in 2012. There will be 33 members of the Senate seeking to continue their work in the senate and 14 of them are attempting to be re-elected. The difference is that some of them were appointed by governors and the ones seeking re-election are senators that were elected in 2006 or were elected sometime prior to 2012 by state special elections either because of death or resignation.
Most of the members whose seats are up for re-election fall into the category of serving one full term or shorter. But some senators such as Bill Nelson or John Ensign are senior and junior senators that have served multiple terms and the voters of those states need to start researching their history to find out what they have done, voted for, and who they are tied in with to decide whether or not they want these people re-elected.
Right now, there is still time for people to do their research and discover what opponents to these incumbents have to say about certain issues and take action to look at patterns of past congresses that was composed primarily of incumbents.
Those who were appointed or were elected during special elections should be analyzed too but the deep analysis should be reserved for those senior and especially junior members. Senior members are extremely difficult to vote out of office so trying is almost futile, but their junior members counterparts have just enough experience and time effectively analyze their performance but not enough power to save them from being voted out.
Elections were generally thought to be the natural way of deciding if legislators deserved to continue their term in office, and it used to be true when it was a hassle to travel to Washington D.C., be away from family and home, and receive a very low pay for long hard work.
Over the years the legislators have increased their salary time and time again it make it a pretty easy job, but mind you that they did not get rich by holding office. Most of those who are rich were rich before they were elected to office.
The problem is that members of the legislature have convinced the American people that the only way that they can make any difference in governing the nation is to have long careers. The people don’t want to have their states to lose the power they wield with senior senators who head boards and committees.
But a study by a Harvard Law professor Einer Elhauge in 1998 published by the CATO Institue argued that term limits could simplify the legislative body and how it functions.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa328.pdf
The next election for members of the House of Representatives and Senate will be held in 2012. There will be 33 members of the Senate seeking to continue their work in the senate and 14 of them are attempting to be re-elected. The difference is that some of them were appointed by governors and the ones seeking re-election are senators that were elected in 2006 or were elected sometime prior to 2012 by state special elections either because of death or resignation.
Most of the members whose seats are up for re-election fall into the category of serving one full term or shorter. But some senators such as Bill Nelson or John Ensign are senior and junior senators that have served multiple terms and the voters of those states need to start researching their history to find out what they have done, voted for, and who they are tied in with to decide whether or not they want these people re-elected.
Right now, there is still time for people to do their research and discover what opponents to these incumbents have to say about certain issues and take action to look at patterns of past congresses that was composed primarily of incumbents.
Those who were appointed or were elected during special elections should be analyzed too but the deep analysis should be reserved for those senior and especially junior members. Senior members are extremely difficult to vote out of office so trying is almost futile, but their junior members counterparts have just enough experience and time effectively analyze their performance but not enough power to save them from being voted out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)