Chateau sends this link, to a story headlined:
Time for Term Limits? Let the Voters Decide!
I'm pretty sure there is a problem with that. Voters actually get to decide at the time of elections.
(Full disclosure: we have written about term limits before....And, we have noted the sort of person who opposes term limits, including Hugo Chavez)
3 comments:
Voters actually get to decide at the time of elections.
I think the article makes the same point.
"Voters actually get to decide at the time of elections..."
Really? It's two different questions, my dear Mungowitz. The typical question in an election is "which of the two candidates that have been listed on your ballot is the lesser evil?" Contrast that with this question: "do you want to curb the power of incumbency, generally?"
I, for one, can seldom be bothered to pencil in a square for that first question, but I'll beat down the counting house doors to vote 'yes' on the second. Of course, in my state, I'll need to get the incumbents' collective permission to get the chance.
I find it amusing that TFA assumes you can just "throw your name on the ballot." I have, even more than Mungowitz, long experience with this task. The incumbents, for some reason, find it expedient to make it very difficult to do this.
It's ironic that the TFA so easily dismisses "constitutional" ballot access restrictions. Perhaps an 'underage' person really is a voter's preference? Once, I was denied the chance to vote for Cameron DeJong on these grounds; he really was the best of the three (oops! now only two) choices available. If you really believe there is some kind of 'right' to vote for anyone you choose, there shouldn't be any restriction. Felons? Foreigners? Garden gnomes? Bring 'em on! Just now, I'm wishing the U.S. Senate had a majority of garden gnomes.
I, for one, support the Illinois term limit rule:
One term in office followed by one term in prison.
Post a Comment