Term Limit Debate

Last night The Sentinel newspaper sponsored a debate on term limits between Robin Ficker and me. I think the debate was mostly polite and concentrated on the issues. I've been told that everyone will be able to see it soon (don't how how soon) on The Sentinel's website.

The headline on the WHAG tv website was that I was "calm and confident" and I'm very happy with that description.

My main point is that although term limits might sound good, they have been proven to be very bad. They have been in  effect in many parts of the country for a very long time and they have been studied by many reputable scholars.

The result of this research is that term limits do not lead to more women and minorities being elected, result in higher spending and taxes, do not bring in truly new people but mainly relatives of those who are term-limited, and result in lower rather than higher voter turnout. My proof of this is detailed in an 85 page research paper with tons of footnotes and bibliography entries that anyone can request from me.

Many people are angry with their government in general and the MoCo Council in particular. I understand that. However, imposing term limits will not make anything better and there is solid proof that it will make things worse.

All of this is not to mention the main point. Imposing term limits is anti-democratic. It takes away from the voters the power to vote for whomever they wish. Voters can get rid of long-term incumbents the proper way, by putting together a campaign to elect an alternative. It is not true -- this is provable -- that it's impossible to beat an incumbent. Term limits are not needed and they do harm. Everyone should vote against term limits if you want good government.