Term Limits In The United States

The United States is a representative democracy. The goal of a representative democracy is to allow new blood to flow through the government each election cycle. This goal, however, is achieved less and less in modern times due to the re-election of many career politicians. These career politicians then spend their next term engaging in activities that will better their chances of re-election, rather than helping their constituents. For this reason, an overwhelming majority of incumbents at the national level get re-elected each term (Sincere, 1995). In effect, local and federal governments in the US suffer from political inaction and constituent dissatisfaction. The best way to combat this situation is to place term limits on all political
positions.
First, and foremost, term limits align with the principles of democracy.
The founding fathers created the US government to be one of limited power and rule by the people. This rule by the people was meant to prevent a singular person from wielding all the power. Term limits would limit the amount of time in which a representative could rule, preventing any one person from remaining in power. Furthermore, political author George Will (1992) writes, “term limits were included among the 15 resolutions of the Virginia Plan submitted to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia,” but weren’t included in the constitution because the measure was considered too detailed (p. 2). Lastly, no constitutional law expressly outlaws term limits. Term limits, therefore, are wholly constitutional.
Term limits in the US government would stimulate political progress. Limiting the number of times a politician may run for office would force representatives to focus less on re-election and more on accomplishing goals. In fact, representatives at lower levels of government report increased levels of decisiveness when facing term limits. Additionally, term limits would increase competition for political offices (Steen, 2006). This competition would allow the best candidates to serve in office. Better candidates in office would make for better
representation.
The right to representation in government is a fundamental principle established in the US Constitution. Term limits would allow minority citizens to achieve better representation in government. Data from lower governments with term limits proves that less incumbency encourages minorities to run for, and achieve, political office. In the case of Prince George’s County, Maryland, term limits allowed an African American community to be governed by a black majority. In other cases, term limits encouraged minority candidates to run for higher office (Sincere, 1998). Better representation for citizens, especially minorities, would likely raise constituent confidence and overall satisfaction in the government. While there is much evidence in favor of term limits, there is also some evidence against. In 1995, the US Supreme Court ruled an Arkansas law adding a term limit provision to the eligibility requirements for congressional representatives unconstitutional. The majority opinion cites Article I of the US Constitution, stating that the eligibility requirement exceeded the requirements set by the Constitution and could be used to wrongly prevent citizens from running for office. This analysis, however, is easily refuted. The dissenting opinion asserts that states, and their citizens, have the right to choose whom they wish to govern them. The people of Arkansas were, in a way, choosing whom they wished to govern them when they added the eligibility requirement. Furthermore, the dissenting opinion refuted the idea that an eligibility requirement would wrongly prevent a citizen from running for office. The eligibility requirement in the Arkansas law is no different than the eligibility requirements outlined in the Constitution, and could not prevent a candidate from being written in (Zubler 1995).
The implementation of term limits may take time to achieve at higher levels of office. Most political writers agree that a term limit movement must begin with local and state governments. According to a 2006 study, term limits at lower levels of government may increase competition for congressional seats (Steen, 2006). This data opens the door for a viable way to introduce term limits to higher levels of office. Increased competition for higher political offices will allow voters to select candidates that support term limits, and replace those who do not. Finally, a number of lobby groups exist for the support of term limits. Given the bipartisan support for term limits, it is not inconceivable to believe that term limits will eventually reach all political offices (Sincere, 1998).
In conclusion, modern democracy in the US suffers from political inaction and constituent dissatisfaction. Career politicians fail to serve the people they represent. The best way to combat this issue is to implement term limits for all political offices. Term limits are constitutional and embody the principles of the founding fathers. Furthermore, term limits stimulate progress in government and promote healthy competition. This healthy competition allows better representation for all citizens. Finally, term limits are generally achievable despite the opposition.