In the early 1990’s American politics experienced a massive upheaval and rejection of the “business as usual” politics that had been in place. The recession and growing budget surplus fueled this anger and the belief that divided party politics was to blame. This mistrust can be seen with Ross Perot’s presidential campaign and its relative success. Members of this system had built up an immunity to the election cycle, over 90% of incumbents were reelected showing the discrepancy of between the populace’s view on the system and the system itself. This volatile cycle gave birth to a radical new idea- the limiting of who many terms one could serve. These limits would force a reset on American politics by removing long time career politicians.
…show more content…
at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 delegates debated but ultimately decided against the inclusion of term limits in the constitution. Latter George Washington decided to step down and not seek a third term and established an important precedent for all his successors to follow. In 1940 when Franklin Roosevelt broke that precedent and sought a third term. After his victory in 1944 the 22nd amendment to the constitution was introduced and passed. This amendment established in law the two-term limit that has previously been only customary. The new amendment resonated with Americans' traditional distrust of a too-powerful executive and in the end, was ratified easily in 1951. At state level a similar concern led to limitations on gubernatorial terms becoming part of most state constitutions. Thirty-eight states now have some form of term limit on their governors. These limits themselves vary wildly from state to state such as Virginia who prohibit its governors from succeeding themselves, although former governors are re-eligible after four years out of office, the only state to have such a restriction. The governors of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia along with the territories of American Soma, Guam, and …show more content…
The opposition points out that the current system also allows representatives to be replaced at the whim of voters. Congressional term limits true function is then to limit the voters’ control by denying them the incentive of re-election in order to do what the citizens want. Critics also believe that such polices leaders would be less experienced and term limited members would be less inclined to develop expertise in policy areas on the basis that they could only serve in leadership positions for very short periods. These reforms would weaken the legislature as an institution and result in a much more powerful executive branch and legislators would be more susceptible to interest groups. New and inexperienced members would be more vulnerable to the influence of lobby groups especially at the campaign stage as more competitive elections would require more financial capital that interest groups would be more than happy to make available. The role of political parties would be increased greatly as the name of the candidates become less and less recognizable to the
at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 delegates debated but ultimately decided against the inclusion of term limits in the constitution. Latter George Washington decided to step down and not seek a third term and established an important precedent for all his successors to follow. In 1940 when Franklin Roosevelt broke that precedent and sought a third term. After his victory in 1944 the 22nd amendment to the constitution was introduced and passed. This amendment established in law the two-term limit that has previously been only customary. The new amendment resonated with Americans' traditional distrust of a too-powerful executive and in the end, was ratified easily in 1951. At state level a similar concern led to limitations on gubernatorial terms becoming part of most state constitutions. Thirty-eight states now have some form of term limit on their governors. These limits themselves vary wildly from state to state such as Virginia who prohibit its governors from succeeding themselves, although former governors are re-eligible after four years out of office, the only state to have such a restriction. The governors of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and West Virginia along with the territories of American Soma, Guam, and …show more content…
The opposition points out that the current system also allows representatives to be replaced at the whim of voters. Congressional term limits true function is then to limit the voters’ control by denying them the incentive of re-election in order to do what the citizens want. Critics also believe that such polices leaders would be less experienced and term limited members would be less inclined to develop expertise in policy areas on the basis that they could only serve in leadership positions for very short periods. These reforms would weaken the legislature as an institution and result in a much more powerful executive branch and legislators would be more susceptible to interest groups. New and inexperienced members would be more vulnerable to the influence of lobby groups especially at the campaign stage as more competitive elections would require more financial capital that interest groups would be more than happy to make available. The role of political parties would be increased greatly as the name of the candidates become less and less recognizable to the