For ages and ages, liberals complained vociferously that the Electoral College was outdated and unfair. Indeed, many argued vehemently (Michael Kinsley was especially adamant)that there was an “Electoral College Lock” that all but guaranteed the Republicans would hold the White House forever. Well… ever since 1992, we hardly ever hear any complaints about the Electoral College, do we?
Meanwhile, for an almost equally long time, Republicans pushed for Congressional term limits, saying that without term limits, Democratic incumbents were unfairly assured of lifetime tenure. Since 1994, of course, you don’t hear many Republican Congressmen crying out for term limits.
Now, my point here is NOT that both sides are hypocrites (hypocritical politicians? What a novel idea!) No, I was hoping that maybe NOW we can offer OBJECTIVE opinions of the idea of the Electoral COllege and term limits!
Democrats now know that the Electoral COllege is NOT necessarily an edge for the GOP, and Republicans now know that they don’t need term limits to win COngressional elections. Our old motives were based on dubious logic.
SO, since you NOW know that the Electoral College and term limits neither help nor hinder your side unduly, tell us what you think of both systems ON THEIR OWN MERITS!
I say the electoral college is outmoded and ought to go. I honestly don’t give a rat’s butt about term limits (I don’t see a pressing need for them, but if they’re enacted over my objections, I won’t lose any sleep over it).
Well, I’m of neither party. But I will offer my opinion. Sure there really isn’t anything they do to further the power of either party, why bother going to the effort to get rid of one and enacct the other.
I don’t like either of them. Both interfere with my right to vote as I see fit. Both assume that voters are too dumb to choose who is to represent them. Dumb or not, we all should have the right.
Peace,
mangeorge
The last time the electoral vote produced a president who hadn’t won a plurality was 1888 (Harrison beat Cleveland). It also happened in 1876 (Hays over Tilden; disputed election), and 1824 (Adams over Jackson–Jackson had the most electoral votes, but not a majority; the House of Representatives elected Adams). Three times in 212 years, with the last time 112 years ago–not one of the more pressing problems we have.
As for Congressional term limits, I can live either way, but I would prefer consistency. If we’re not going to limit Congressional terms, then presidential terms should not be limited; if presidential terms are limited, then Congressional terms should be limited as well.
Actually, given that I kind of see the current resident of the White House and the current (presumptive, the convention hasn’t been held yet) nominee of the Democratic party as sort of warmed over Repbulicans with a better ability to look empathetic, I am not sure that I would discount the “Republican lock” theory about the electoral college just yet.
At the same time, I don’t think the electoral college itself does very much to distort things - we end up with about the same kind of Presidents with it as we would get if we used direct elections. There would be some differences (particularly since VP candidates are frequently chosen for their impact on the electoral votes of a particular state - and being VP does give you an advantage in a subsequent run for the Presidency), but I don’t think they would be huge. If we are going to go to the time and effort of passing a constitutional amendment, there are other things I would do first. I guess that puts me in agreement with MysterEcks
I oppose term limits because I generally think of legislative politics as more responsive to public input (small-d democratic) than executive branch politics. Term limits would reduce the total knowledge and experience of the legislative branch, and therefore shift power to the executive branch - particularly the civil service. While I admire the work done by federal civil servents, I do believe in democratic control over there work, and think that will be more effective with a more powerful legislature.
Term limits in the California State Legislature hasn’t resulted in a transfer of power to civil servants, but rather to lobbyists, who are the people who have been around government long enough to know how things are done.
CA’s term limits are pretty severe, so the turnover is high.
The “logic” behind term limits has always astounded me.
Take it to a personal level: How many sane people would ever say “Don’t give me the veteran surgeon (or pilot, or cop, or fill-in-the-blank), I want the neophyte.”
Mandatory term limits are unconstitutional (except for the President). They illegally remove the right of the voter to vote for whom they please.
BTW, term limits already exist. They’re called ballots. Straight up-and-down votes are the only reasonable way to determine who is and is not fit to govern.
Electoral college: Get rid of it! Why should a candidate who wins California unanimously be no different from a candidate who wins California by a single vote (in theory)? Or more to the fairness point, why should the candidate who loses California by a single vote get the same zero electoral votes from that state as a candidate who actually got no votes there?
Congressional term limits: What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If Presidential term limits are a good thing, why are congressional ones a bad thing? If congressional term limits are bad, then why are Presidenial ones good? I’ve seen argument for both sides of the term-limits issue, but none that specifically address why the office of President is unique in this way. Either institute Congressional term limits or repeal the 22nd amendment. My personal preference is for the Congressional term limits. I think politics as a profession is a bad thing; it leads to (if not actually is) the pursuit of power for its own sake. If they’re truly in office to serve the people, let them do it with an eye toward being one of “the people” again rather than hoping to maintain a privileged position. It was this very attitude of the Democratic Congress that the Republicans capitalized on in the “Contract with America.”
I’m not saying this is how I feel towards the whole enterprise, but here is one possible defense of the intitution:
Californians share more in common with each other than they do with Ilini, so state-wide voting blocks preserve some semblence of more local control.
Direct election would give third parties more power, and we know that we want America to continue to retain its two parties that aren’t answerable to anyone
Other nations, like Canada and Britain, don’t vote for their chief executives in any way. If Tony Blair’s local parliamentary district decided to vote him out at the next election, even if he retains his parties leadership AND his party stays in power, he isn’t the big man anymore since he is no longer an MP. In America there is no requirement that the Chief Executive also be a member of any other body. Likewise, his position as Chief Executive is dependent on the whim of his party.
I’m for term limits across the board–for all politicians.
The longer someone is in office, the more money is pumped into his/her coffers by special interests. Getting elected requires a great deal of money. That’s why incumbents have a huge advantage.
Put in term limits and take away some of the power of special interests.
This is a little repetitive…
Electoral college: unnecessary and potentially a source of division, even if the odds are against it. The issue may not be of pressing importance, but why not just abolish it because it serves no purpose?
Term limits: If the main arguments against term limits are campaign funding disparities or the fact that an incumbent will probably be reelected, that seems weak. Campaign finance reform (haha) would theoretically take care of an incumbent’s advantage. And he/she wasn’t always an incumbent; the first election depended on gaining public favor. Term limits would impede the right to choose and elect officials.
Just a short hijack on the tangent about all electoral votes in a state going to someone who wins by a narrow margin-
nothing in the constitution requires that a state’s electoral vote be a “winner take all” bloc. In fact Maine and Nebraska have voting for Electors on a district-by-district basis. The other states have all made their electoral slates winner take all because they believe it maximizes their political leverage.
I’m all for abolishing the electorial college, there’s no harm in getting rid of it and it does no good, so basicly it’s a waste of taxpayer money.
I’m also pretty strongly for term limits, a good book on this position is George Will’s Restoration. I really don’t like the idea of a career politician (in any office) I elect someone to go in and do what they think is right, not what’s best for me (or any other group) or most expedient for anyone. I don’t think it’s beneficial to have members of congress to be acting mainly, or specifically, as agents of their state/district and swapping favors and trying to rise in power over 20, 40 or 60+ years.
As for people saying that this would be wrong because it would keep you from voting from someone you want, we already do this. If you’re in one state you (usually) can’t vote for someone in another state, you can only vote for someone who’s over the age limit (25 or 30) and who’s been a US citizen for 7 or 9 years. You can’t vote for someone who’s lost the right to vote (usually) or a declared traitor, and I’m asuming that there would be major problems if someone who was in prison got a majority of the vote.
I would rather have term limits than the 30+ age limit myself…
Kerinsky
