Term limits destroys the relationship between the office
holder and voters of the district.
During the office holder’s term, he or she has less
responsibility to the constituents because they will not be held accountable
through elections. Therefore, the office
holder can either vote as he pleases, vote according to the people and
organizations that give him money or according to the dictates of the
party.
Part of the office holder’s responsibility is to establish
and nurture a relationship for voters of the district with other elected office
holders and with members of the government.
If the member’s time in office is legally limited, those around him do
not feel compelled to allow a relationship to develop.
Members of Congress will not be making decisions that are
responsible to the voters of the district.
If the elected office seat is vacant every few terms, the party in
power, those that are employed by the government and/or the lobbyists will have
more power.
An individual voter cannot vote for those that they believe
are best suited for the job because Term Limits reduced the pool of people who
can run for office. Even if the voter writes
in someone that is term limited out of office, their vote will not count. This destroys
the one man one vote concept that democracies and republics are built on.
The Constitution does not mention Term Limits but that does
not mean the Founders were not aware of Term Limits. The foundation to the Constitution is the voter. After debating the issue, they decided to
allow voters to make the decision about how long a member of Congress can
serve.
Term limits here in Michigan has not corrected any problems
by term limiting members of the legislature or the executive offices. If anything, they have made the process
worse.
With term limits, parties hold the power over seats, not
individuals. Individuals that are going
to be around care about their district.
Parties care about the party.
Leadership will suffer with term limits. No one, on either side, will be able to
provide benevolent leadership because they are not around long enough to
develop relationships with other members of congress.
If we term limit our federal office holders, that will place
Michigan are a severe disadvantage compared to other states.
With a short term, office holders do not have time to build
a strong relationship with voters in their district, so they become risk
adverse. If they were around long enough,
they would be willing and able to cash in some of their credibility to make a
choice that is good for the district and the country, even if a majority in the
district are against the choice.
Term limits is just another tool the minority governing
party wants us to agree with so that they can force out those from an opposing
party and have the opportunity to place their own in the position.
Therefore, because term limits lessen the responsibility of
the office holder to the constituents, reduces the relationship building, moves
more power to the party, government officials and lobbyist and limits a voter’s
speech, term limits should not be supported.
