[Cube Inmate]

I'm not really big on this either way, but in way of rebuttal....

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

A few things I really don't like about the idea of fixed term limits.

1) What if the person is really good? It is a shame that they lose their position due to some arbitrary time limit limit prescribed at some time in the past.

There's no shortage of good people to fill the job...any job. If a really good incumbent is forced out due to a term limit, then you just thank your lucky stars that you a) had a good person, and b) got him out before the job took its toll and turned him into a typical politician.

The leadership of volunteer, service, and professional organizations often operates with term limits. The term limit is actually something that attracts high quality people to these jobs...they know that they can do a service to their organization/profession for a period and then step back from it without any pressure to continue. It would be great if your average doctor felt that he could do a public service for a while without completely giving up his career.

2) Lack of accountability. The person isn't going to need to be confronted by the electorate. Outside of their own party rebellion (or in the US, impeachment) there isn't much that can be done to hold a person accountable. (aside: If you are for an elected Senate because of accountability issues, I'm not sure how you can then turn around and justify fixed limits.)

How is any politician accountable after he's decided not to run for office again? With a term limit, at least you rule out the speculation as to whether or not someone will run again, and the associated uncertainty about his motivations.

3) Lame duck policies. The policies implimented can be dumped as soon as they are gone from office.

Even if a person's term is limited, he will most likely want to enact policies that will be beneficial to his party's chance of re-election, right? On the odd occasion that a person knows the office will change parties, though, he certainly could enact policies contrary to what the incoming person would choose. Two questions then: First, how often do US presidents (e.g.) enact major changes in their final 80 days in office as a lame duck? Second, how would you characterize the Liberals' retroactive income tax reduction in 2005? They hadn't lost the election yet, but they certainly had a bad feeling about it.

Whose motivations do you trust more? Those of a lame duck or those of someone trying to get re-elected?