Term Limits
July 8, 2007
Do you support manditory “term limits” for elected Ohio legislators?
Montgomery County Ohio GOP Blog
A place for discussion, debate and input concerning party events and happenings.
-
Recent Comments
Zug on Worst Next President THEBIGDAWG on Worst Next President J Todd on Worst Next President JR on Worst Next President Mick on Worst Next President
July 8, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Yes. Democrats should be term limited to zero as well as the Country Club Republicans who are hell-bent on destroying the GOP.
July 8, 2007 at 4:25 pm
No. I did until we had them, but now the elected officials are just playing “musical chairs” with the offices. In essence we still don’t have term limits, the pols are in office just as long, just in different state jobs. Maybe they should have limits, then have to be out of office — all offices for 6 years before they can run for ANY office again. But, on the other hand, that would eliminate the good ones that should be reelected and kept for a while. I’ve changed my mind on this issue, now–no term limits–thank you anyway.
July 8, 2007 at 5:14 pm
NO. As long the people approve, an office holder doing a good job should stay. What should not be allowed is continuance of chair heads–they should turn over after 3 years.
July 8, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Originally, I was against the concept of term limits. I believed that a good Legislator should be kept as long as possible. However, with power-machine incumbant examples at the highest levels, like Senators Kennedy and Byrd, I had doubts. When I realized that running for office should be a duty shared by as many citizens as possible, and not a career goal, I completely reversed my position. I’m in favor of term limits, particularly for State Legislators.
A State Legislator is a grass roots District Representative. It is his/her duty to speak for and protect the citizens of the District at the State level, alongside others who should have the same goal.
In Ohio, the one change I would like to see is the length of term in office. Having to run for reelection every two years, means more time must be spent campaigning than doing the job. Representatives should have terms of 4 years, just like the State Senators.
July 8, 2007 at 6:03 pm
No, as much as I despise some of the people who make government their life, it is our responsibility alone to remove these people, and if the voters are so callous or stupid as to keep putting them in, it should be permitted.
July 8, 2007 at 8:19 pm
In 1994 the Republican Party swept into power based largely on the Contract with America. One of the key tenets of the contract was the Citizens Legislature Act, which would have imposed term limits on the US Congress, but it the bill did not pass.
Like many government initiatives, the CLA was founded in good intentions; however, the desired result would not have formulated.
Politicians often go to Washington or Columbus (in our case) intending upon leaving after a certain time spent pursuing a specific agenda. Then, they tend to get comfortable and complacent, largely ignoring the interests of their constituents. Instead, they seek little more than self-preservation.
Thus, term limits would save the day and end the trend, we were to believe.
Unfortunately, term limits preclude a party self-policing itself and elected officials tend to simply move on to difference offices. Take, for example, both parties in this state. How many politicians have served in the legislature and in multiple positions in the executive branch?
Simply put, term limits are an ineffective way of keeping our representatives from becoming entrenched and insulated, mainly because they find other ways of doing so, anyway. The best method, as has always been the case, to prevent such an occurrence is via the ballot box. In short, if State Rep. So-and-So seems to be merely perpetuating his existence while ignoring the folks, fire him during the primary or general elections.
July 8, 2007 at 11:38 pm
NO, I think the voters should be the one’s to
impose “term limits” on their representatives!
The government seems to be interfering more and
more with people’s lives! Get the government out
and let the “market” take care of itself! If voters
are not intelligent enough to get someone out who
has been there too long, it is the voters fault!!
July 9, 2007 at 10:56 am
Yes, I do approve of mandatory term limits for Ohio legislators. I helped circulate the petition for voters to approve it for the ballot, back when it was first proposed. This is no less constitutional than having a governor or president term-limited, and so forth. We just happen to be talking about those serving in the legislative branch. The voters are also no less involved in signing the referendum than they are voting in/out an office holder.
July 9, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I am in favor of term limits; more importantly, the people, in a recent voter survey that Speaker Husted sent out, are in favor of them. As I recall, 70% of the respondents were against even extending the legislative term limits to 12 years. (15% in favor, 15% undecided)
Although there is a certain amount of musical chairs being played by term-limited officeholders, the term limits certainly offer opportunities to aspiring officeholders who would otherwise rarely have a realistic chance to run and serve.
I would be far more interested in advocating for change in the process of drawing the districts. I’d like to see both sides have the courage to draw rectangular districts that make demographic sense, not political sense, and let’s have some real races!
I would also like to see the presidential electoral college, an institution I believe in deeply, change to a system where there is one vote that relates the outcome of each congressional district, and the two ‘Senate’ votes to go to the candidate who won the state. I think there are a couple of states, Maine among them, that do it this way.
July 9, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Yes, there should be term limits. While limits will force quality legislators out of office, the limits will also get rid of the incompentents. In addition, there should be a restriction on close family members being elected to the same or similar office (eg. House & Senate).
Yes, the system will be abused, but it already is.
July 9, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I agree with term limitations for several reasons. One, it seems as if elected officials who serve for more than two or three terms become forgetful and experience extensive memory loss. Simply, they forget that they were elected by the people for the people. Two, I feel burn-out occurs, which distorts their thinking and actions. Three, the longer politicans are in office the more susceptable they become to the “corruption, power, and unethical behaviors” that often surrounds them. I feel Taft become arrogant and greedy in his last term of office, and where did it get us? DeWine became compliant, apathetic, and tried to reach out to the minority democrats. Where did this get us? Well, it got us Strickland and Sherwood Brown. With term limitations, at least I know that Strickland and Sherwood will not be in office forever. I agree with Mick, “Democrats should be limited to “zero” terms.” If you have any doubts, just think of Senator Kennedy, KKK Byrd, and the Clintons – THIS IS SCAREY!!!
July 9, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Of late I’ve been paying closer attention to the only “Republican” senator from Ohio: Mr. Voinovich. Mr. V is far out of touch with conservative principles as I understand them.
Mr. V opposed John Bolton’s appointment to the UN which is like opposing the appointment of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and/or Jean Kilpatrick to the UN. Ridiculous.
Mr. V demonstrated no understanding of the immigration bill he and his colleagues attempted to ram down the throats of the American people a few weeks back. Don’t be fooled by the fact that he ultimately voted against colture. He waited to see what the handwriting on the wall said before he cast his vote (changed his vote!). Coward. Don’t believe me? Listen to the interview of Mr. V on the Sean Hannity radio program. Pathetic.
Now Mr. V wants to bail on the “unpopular” war in Iraq. A war he voted to authorize when it was deemed to be a popular idea. I’m supposing Mr. V gets his talking points these days from that bastion of northern Ohio courage, Dennis Kucinich. Hey, Mr. V….when you authorized us to go to war did you authorize a win or a loss? I’m confused. These days Mr. V is taking the position the USA should take a loss in a front in the War on Jihad. Sheesh…
In answer to the question posed by our esteemed blog moderator: Once upon a time I thought term limits were not the answer (term limits were not a good idea). Today…I’m not so certain.
July 10, 2007 at 4:54 pm
We already have term limits. It’s called a “Vote”. The only reason term limits would be necessary is if the general voting public takes an “I don’t care” attitude. Incidently, this attitude will move us rapidly towards a Democratic Socialist Welfare State effictively transfering responsibility for our lives from each of us to the government.
July 11, 2007 at 9:34 pm
I agree with T. R. Routsong (and, by the way, also with Bob Netzley). No term limits, but there ought to be limits on how long one can stay in a leadership position, for example, Speaker of the House.
July 11, 2007 at 10:44 pm
I love term limits…
I think we should have them at the Federal level as well.
While we obviously focus on Ohio, let’s look at my home state, West (by God) Virginia and Robert Byrd. He should be the poster child for term limits.
I don’t think the limitations should be on leadership alone because some people wouldn’t step up to the plate or would not be cut out for it.
We should extend limits to 12 years for our General Assembly (and Feds) and have elections every 4 years for Reps. The reason nothing gets done in the 8 years most people are there is not because they are only there 8 years, it’s because as soon as they are elected they are running for re-election and can’t focus on legislation like they should be able to.
I do think it’s a crock that all the shuffling goes on at the State Executive level as well.
One only needs to look at the chaos in Washington to realize that term limits aren’t a bad thing.
Currently you only need to sit out one cycle in order to run again for office, if the people want you back they’ll vote for you, otherwise step aside and continue serving through other means.
July 16, 2007 at 5:19 pm
If you are going to edit our free speech when we are not cursing and just giving our opinion that may be contrary to the elite in the Republican party, then why should we bother posting our opinions?
Opinions are exactly that — our opinions. I do not always agree with any one person all the time, but I do speak up about what I believe, and if you refuse to post my submissions, I’ll just send them to Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham and let them talk about them on the air.
July 16, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Let the voters bring term limits. If the voters are dumb enough to keep voting in Ted Kennedy because there is no one smart enough to explain the FairTax and how lower taxes will grow the economy quickly, then we have a Republican problem of weak communication.
I also believe we need more choices at the polls. We need at least 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans to vote for in every office. If there are no choices, voters will show up at some primaries, but will only show up at the Presidential national elections, and you will see even lower and lower voter turnout, because voters will feel like the parties are running the show and their vote is a shadow vote or a pretend vote but does not count.
On the other hand, if all party holders were limited to two terms of six years and then had to get entirely out of politics and work in the private sector for 10 years before running for any political office, that might bring a reality check.