Term limits on the block in January

[redwood66]

Let's see if they have the fortitude to do it. I hope so. It will be telling who votes against it.

By Ted Cruz

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-republicans-really-want-to-drain-the-swamp-heres-how-to-do-it/2016/12/08/7b722582-bd6f-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?postshare=491481296087189&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.a4ddaf5cb2d4

 

[VRBeauty]

California enacted legislative term limits twenty years ago, by referendum. As one who has worked in and with and around the Legislature, I have not been impressed with the results. We have far fewer legislators who develop a depth of knowledge in any subject area. Legislative staffers and lobbyists are not subject to term limits, and they have gained a lot more power and influence when it comes to shaping legislation. Although some lower house (Assembly, comparable to the House of Representatives) legislators get elected to the upper house (Senate) when their time in the lower house is up, there are twice as many Assembly seats as Senate seats, which means that some termed-out Assemblymen will find themselves without a job after six years... so many of them start angling, pretty early in their careers, for their next job - which is often in lobbying. Which might mean that they're trying to curry favor with people who are paid to represent special interests. It also means that an assemblyman/representative is considered to be a lame duck for the last two years of his or her term, which likely affects both their influence - precisely when they have the most knowledge to bring to the table - and their legislative strategy over the whole term. These things also hold true for the Senate, which has two-term (eight year) limits.

I don't think don't think term limits have helped California - and I rather suspect that a lot of people who have followed California politics would agree.

 

[redwood66]

Being originally from CA and seeing how it is not the state of my youth any longer, I would hesitate to use it for any kind of comparison or model for much of anything as far as government goes. Seems to me the problem is the elected leaders and the people who keep voting them in when it is obvious that they are gaming the system. The state could deny lobbying to former elected officials. This kind of political hackery is what pisses me off.

The proposal by Cruz is 3 terms for House (6 years total) and 2 for Senate (12 years total). The House could add one more but if you can't get something done in the Senate after 12 years then you need to go.

On another note it did surprise me that the Governor of Iowa has served 23 years total? No gubernatorial term limits in Iowa? He is to be the new Ambassador to China under Trump. They must like him in Iowa to serve so long.

https://ballotpedia.org/Governor_of_Iowa

 

[ruby59]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Cianci

I do understand what you are saying Red.

We had one for mayor, see above.

During his 21 years in office he had to resign twice because of felony charges.

Served 5 years in a federal prison.

And then when he got out he actually ran again for mayor.

He was so ingrained that voters looked all past that and almost reelected him.

And he is just one example.

It is embarrassing that in our state the only way some lose their position in government is by their going to prison.

 

[Tekate]

Let's see if they have the fortitude to do it. I hope so. It will be telling who votes against it.

By Ted Cruz

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-republicans-really-want-to-drain-the-swamp-heres-how-to-do-it/2016/12/08/7b722582-bd6f-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?postshare=491481296087189&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.a4ddaf5cb2d4

Yes it will, and I don't think it will pass at all.

 

[distracts]

California enacted legislative term limits twenty years ago, by referendum. As one who has worked in and with and around the Legislature, I have not been impressed with the results. We have far fewer legislators who develop a depth of knowledge in any subject area. Legislative staffers and lobbyists are not subject to term limits, and they have gained a lot more power and influence when it comes to shaping legislation. Although some lower house (Assembly, comparable to the House of Representatives) legislators get elected to the upper house (Senate) when their time in the lower house is up, there are twice as many Assembly seats as Senate seats, which means that some termed-out Assemblymen will find themselves without a job after six years... so many of them start angling, pretty early in their careers, for their next job - which is often in lobbying. Which might mean that they're trying to curry favor with people who are paid to represent special interests. It also means that an assemblyman/representative is considered to be a lame duck for the last two years of his or her term, which likely affects both their influence - precisely when they have the most knowledge to bring to the table - and their legislative strategy over the whole term. These things also hold true for the Senate, which has two-term (eight year) limits.

I don't think don't think term limits have helped California - and I rather suspect that a lot of people who have followed California politics would agree.

Yes, this is what I said in a previous post that mentioned term limits, and people were not pleased by my opinion. The power of deep knowledge doesn't disappear - it moves to lobbyists who are not accountable to the voters, only to those who are paying them. And there are few careers you can take several years out of and come back to without having lost your place, so you end up with politicians who are explicitly stumping for their next job for a company or as a lobbyist rather than their next job working for their constituency. Plenty of studies show that politicians up for reelection are more responsive to the needs of their constituents than ones that aren't, and basically making it so that every single seat guaranteed has more non-responsiveness built in seems like not what we want.

I think a better solution to combat the power of incumbency is to find some way for the public to gain more knowledge about lower level campaigns, especially in the primary stage. If state legislators had to have debates with their primary opponents, that were aired on tv, that people actually watched, or something? I don't know. But that would give opponents to incumbents significantly more of a chance if their name recognition was upped and people had the ability to see them in action.

 

[Dee*Jay]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Cianci

I do understand what you are saying Red.

We had one for mayor, see above.

During his 21 years in office he had to resign twice because of felony charges.

Served 5 years in a federal prison.

And then when he got out he actually ran again for mayor.

He was so ingrained that voters looked all past that and almost reelected him.

And he is just one example.

It is embarrassing that in our state the only way some lose their position in government is by their going to prison.

Ruby, that reminds me of a joke in my state, Illinois. Four of the last seven Governors have gone to jail so being elected here results in an eight year term -- four years in office and four years in prison!

 

[monarch64]

California enacted legislative term limits twenty years ago, by referendum. As one who has worked in and with and around the Legislature, I have not been impressed with the results. We have far fewer legislators who develop a depth of knowledge in any subject area. Legislative staffers and lobbyists are not subject to term limits, and they have gained a lot more power and influence when it comes to shaping legislation. Although some lower house (Assembly, comparable to the House of Representatives) legislators get elected to the upper house (Senate) when their time in the lower house is up, there are twice as many Assembly seats as Senate seats, which means that some termed-out Assemblymen will find themselves without a job after six years... so many of them start angling, pretty early in their careers, for their next job - which is often in lobbying. Which might mean that they're trying to curry favor with people who are paid to represent special interests. It also means that an assemblyman/representative is considered to be a lame duck for the last two years of his or her term, which likely affects both their influence - precisely when they have the most knowledge to bring to the table - and their legislative strategy over the whole term. These things also hold true for the Senate, which has two-term (eight year) limits.

I don't think don't think term limits have helped California - and I rather suspect that a lot of people who have followed California politics would agree.

Yes, this is what I said in a previous post that mentioned term limits, and people were not pleased by my opinion. The power of deep knowledge doesn't disappear - it moves to lobbyists who are not accountable to the voters, only to those who are paying them. And there are few careers you can take several years out of and come back to without having lost your place, so you end up with politicians who are explicitly stumping for their next job for a company or as a lobbyist rather than their next job working for their constituency. Plenty of studies show that politicians up for reelection are more responsive to the needs of their constituents than ones that aren't, and basically making it so that every single seat guaranteed has more non-responsiveness built in seems like not what we want.

I think a better solution to combat the power of incumbency is to find some way for the public to gain more knowledge about lower level campaigns, especially in the primary stage. If state legislators had to have debates with their primary opponents, that were aired on tv, that people actually watched, or something? I don't know. But that would give opponents to incumbents significantly more of a chance if their name recognition was upped and people had the ability to see them in action.

Distracts, I see where you're going with this train of thought, but first you have to have a population that gives a f*&k. And everything about the political system works against the premise you're proposing. Every bit of politics is smoke and mirrors. It's nothing but marketing/branding/advertising, and selling a product to the masses. Same damn strategy.

 

[redwood66]

monnie many don't and it is so sad to me when I hear people say they never vote or follow politics. I like to see people involved in the process and having genuine debate, but I wonder if people are so embarrassed of their lack of knowledge or scared of being ridiculed that they just shut it all out, going about their day?

Ones local government affects them more often and personally than what is happening in DC. I feel it is my duty to be involved. Is that taking it too seriously? I don't live within a city's limits and I watch the local jurisdictions gradually creep on the regulations, some good and some overstepping.

 

[House Cat]

Mitch McConnell said that term limits would not be reviewed in the Senate. He said they have term limits, they are called "elections." Did something change?

I think the bigger issue is to fix gerrymandering. If we had the ability to vote fairly for our Congress people, they wouldn't hold these seats for so long in the first place. It would also motivate these people to do their jobs! So many of them run uncontested because the district lines are drawn in such a funky way that there isn't any fair competition. In my area, there is actually a keyhole drawn in a district to eliminate a certain type of voter. When you look at how the district lines are drawn, it looks more like the circulatory system, rather than the lines drawn for voting districts.