Matt talks about term limits:
It really does seem a bit odd that a mayor with a 67 percent approval rating should be forced from office because of a term limits law. I suppose I understand the theory that presidential-level term limits serve as a check on tyranny, but there doesn’t seem to me to be a good reason to worry about that at the local level of government.
Term limits in Ohio actually helped created a great racket for the continuation of legislative political machines - State Representatives and Senators are term-limited to eight consecutive years of service (one can serve eight years, go away, and run again and serve another eight years). What happens far too often is that a soon-to-be-term-limited official “retires” a few months early, allowing a successor in the same party to take over the seat in a low-information, low-turnout election and run as an effective incumbent in November. It doesn’t get new, fresh faces in office - it simply gets handpicked, identical politicians in gerrymandered seats. It’s worse than lifelong incumbency, in a way, because it allows political parties to game elections in order to ensure the results they want. It also tends to ensure that you get a lot of politicians who are simply biding time for their next job rather than doing the current one.
Legislatures and executives are different, however; I can see the case for executive term limits a lot more easily than I can legislative limits, particularly given the scope of power executives have over appointments and administration.
------
Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.
I always thought term limits were a crock because if someones sucks just vot them out. THAT’S the term limit.
I am also WAY to idealistic.