Jump to content
Bronc I agree. I firmly believe that at the local level the elector-it is more informed about candidates than at the national level. In a federal congressional race, with no term limits, and all the powers of Article I of the Constitution, we get five second ads and hour debates. Locally we get years of knowing these people.
I don't disagree that it isn't a dichotomy--the days of the Daley political machine remind us of out of check politics--but still the best prevention of corruption is a well informed voter. Corruption can also come about when all qualified persons have served, and are not alotted more terms. Not saying we have a shortage of qualified individuals but the learning curve for some elected positions can be upwards of 4 years; then it's back to campaigning, or cruising the classifieds.
I think it is a good idea. If democracy truly works, you have to have faith in the elector-it. Term limits are not as limiting as the voters: if the voters want to keep them, then they should stay; if the voters do not want to keep them, then they can vote them out. Term limits also discourage younger candidates: an 8 year max career is not much of an incentive. If you have a skilled elected position, and someone is doing their job well; they should be allowed to stay if the voters choose to let them.
Last login: Thursday, June 13, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.