Oh, to be an Incumbent Legislator

The trouble with term limits (0.00 / 0)

There are two serious flaws with term limits.

The first flaw is that it actually increases the power of incumbency, as potential challengers generally choose to wait until a seat becomes vacant due to term limits.  That's why, for instance, of the 38 incumbent City Council members up for reelection in NYC in 2005, only one faced a serious challenge.

That challenge?  First, the incumbent had been censured by the Council.  Second, the challenger was the previous seatholder, and had been forced out four years earlier by term limits.  The challenger won, barely.

The second flaw is what we're seeing here in NYC -- Assembly members running for City Council seats, where the outgoing Council member will certainly fill the Assembly seat.  It's being called "flipping," and it thoroughly defeats the point of term limits.

Term limits are the wrong solution to the problem.  The right solution is a combination of methods to diminish the power of incumbency, and the special interests that support incumbents.  "Clean Money, Clean Elections" is a start.  So are severe limitations on -- or outright banning of -- member items and discretionary funds.

The main method, however, is for folks like us to force the MSM to tell the truth about what our incumbents are doing (or not doing).  Don't let a lazy "reporter" get away with parroting a press release, but demand that these so-called "journalists" get and report the facts.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 04:38:06 AM CDT

Disagreement (0.00 / 0)

I've heard some arguments made against term limits (which I agree with) that I thought were fair and somewhat substantive.  I don't really follow the logic with the arguments made here though.

While many wait a term in order to vie for an open seat, I do not see how this can be construed as increasing the power of incumbency when, subsequent to that first reelection campaign, there is no incumbency.  This seems convoluted to me.  There seems to be nothing to indicate incumbency has been strengthened.  Statistics indicating higher incumbency retention rate would proof incumbency has been strengthened, and obviously we don't have those since there were few challengers.  

Challengers avoiding a race against an incumbent doesn't indicate incumbency has been either strengthened or weakened, but rather that potential candidates are taking advantage of the new system and are avoiding it as a problem altogether.  Saying incumbency is strengthened when it has been shortened to one election cycle seems to miss the point.  After that election cycle, the problem of incumbency is rendered moot.  At that point, its strength doesn't matter.

I acknowledge the second problem you highlight as a real and substantive problem.  Yet, this is not a problem with term limits in any way, but rather the result of a distortion caused by having term limits at the city level but not at the state level.  This distortion is exacerbated by the power and influence of New York City, as, obviously, usually politicians would not be willing to jump down to local level politics after serving on the state level.  This particular distortion could be mitigated fairly effectively by bringing term limits to the state level.

All that said, I completely and unabashedly agree with your suggestions at limiting the power of incumbency.  Clean Money, Clean Elections and greater media accountability are vital steps in that direction.

---

by: Klugstah @ Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 08:50:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

They work together (0.00 / 0)

My first point, that incumbents running for reelection get fewer challengers because of term limits, is true, and adds to the power of incumbency.  Remember that the most vulnerable incumbent is a first-termer, but if nobody steps up to challenge that person, then term limits fail there.  It also combines with the second point, that term-limited city officials can just "flip" with state officials.

By term-limiting state officials as well, we'll just compound the problem of flipping state and local electeds, spreading it across the entire state.  While most local electeds don't make more than state legislators do (NYC Councilmembers make a lot more, but they're an exception), it's still a paying job as an elected official.

My point is that term limits are failing to end the concept of the lifetime politician.  After an initial wave of "new" people in NYC, many of whom were waiting in the wings for the opportunity anyway, this new wave now facing term limits is finding ways to stay in some elected office.

We need a solution that works, not just on paper or in theory, but in the real world.  Term limits doesn't do it.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:17:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree and disagree (0.00 / 0)

I see your point about the lack of primaries until the term limit ends, but more often challengers who want to have a leg up when the incumbent is term-limited challenge the incumbent in the previous cycle as a test-run.  Also, just functionally, isn't it better to have a contested primary at least every 2 cycles, instead of only every 30 years?

As for flipping, that is def annoying, but after 2 periods of term limits, that should also theoretically stop.  

---

by: Roatti @ Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:31:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're right ... to a point (0.00 / 0)

Having a contested race every 8 years is certainly better than just every 30 years.  The problem is that with flipping we're back to once every 30 years.

The NYC term limits law allows someone to come back after four years out of office.  So if two people "flip" in 2009, they could "flip back" in 2017 -- and don't bet against that happening.  In addition, there are several former Councilmembers who didn't flip in 2001, and are now considering running for their old seat next year.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:09:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Problem (0.00 / 0)

That's a problem with the way term limits in NYC have been enacted, not with term limits themselves.  

---

by: Klugstah @ Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:28:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Def agree with that (0.00 / 0)

So basically what you're saying is that the term-limit law needs to be stronger and bar anyone from holding an office for more than 2 terms total, not just consecutively.  I 100% agree on that front.  

---

by: Roatti @ Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:29:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Term limits (0.00 / 0)

First-term incumbents are the most vulnerable because they have yet to entrench themselves to the degree typical of multi-term incumbents.  Even if incumbents were strengthened for this one cycle, the fact that they are not in office afterward, precisely when they would be stronger and more entrenched, is exactly the goal we are attempting to accomplish.  We're not trying to weaken incumbency for the sake of weakening incumbency, but rather to prevent politicians from becoming entrenched, and thus subject to corruption and apathy towards the concerns of their constituents.  What would it matter if incumbency is strengthened for one term?  (However, I do not think it has been strengthened.)

I do not mind the concept of people jumping between state and local politics too much.  It can be troublesome, but there's nothing conceptually wrong with it.  As I stated above, the NYC Council enjoys exceptional power and clout.  I find it unlikely that there will be as much eagerness elsewhere in the state for state legislators to jump into local politics (although it undoubtedly will occur.)  

Yet, I don't see any fundamentally wrong with it when it does occur.  We frequently advance individuals for office who had served in lower offices because such individuals show a familiarity for legislative bodies, how government functions, and how the deliberative process works.  Previous legislative experience allows us to know both how our potential candidates vote ideologically and what caliber legislator they have been in the past.  

---

by: Klugstah @ Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:23:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just Add (0.00 / 0)

I realized I didn't state that I firmly believe that term limits should be based on terms served, regardless of whether or not they are consecutive.  I apologize for not properly clarifying my position.    

---

by: Klugstah @ Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 11:48:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why do we need term limits (0.00 / 0)

We already have them at every level of office. It's called election day. If you don't want someone in office any more than simply vote them out. I realize no one will agree with me but I see setting term limits as limiting choice. Restrict choice because we don't trust you will do it for yourself. Same with the whole property tax cap debate going on right now. It's called vote down the budget if you think they're spending too much and your taxes are too high.  There seems to be a growing desire in our society to have big brother come in and restrict us. Have big brother come in and tell us what we can and cannot do, and forever chip away at our constitutional powers under the guise of big brother knowing better what is best for us.  

---

by: TruBlu @ Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 21:29:04 PM CDT