Over and over, political activists are tackling the problem of long-term incumbents. Once someone has been elected-- or worse, re-elected-- they become difficult to unseat. Political observers contend that this situation leads to less effective government, and a little too much coziness between elected officials and their big donors and lobbyists.
More than one state has dealt with this concern by limiting the number of terms an official may serve. After so many years, you aren't eligible for re-election. So far, except for the presidency, this effort has failed at the Federal level.
Some of the pundits are very concerned about this movement. The conservative thinker Burke argued that politics is a skill like any other. Just as you would not want an inexperienced surgeon operating on you or your family, so you would not want a novice elected official deciding on far-reaching laws and policy. Every newly elected official will say that the job is far more complicated than they imagine, and that most of the first first term is consumed by simply 'learning the ropes'. Real mastery of the process can take a decade or more.
Here in the Pelican State, we have instituted limits, and everything is helter-skelter. Legislators are running for the Senate, Senators are running for the House, and the senior members of both bodies are on the way out, or at least on their way to the other wing of the Capitol. Many observers fear that the real winners in all of this may be big business. That seems a valid point: when the elected officials are all new, the only people with real experience are lobbyists... not the best of all worlds.
There is a second problem in the political landscape, however: left vs right, republican vs. democrat. It seems that everyone is trying so hard to win out over the other side, that no one is interested win-win solutions. Beating the opponent has become more important than serving the majority. In the nasty fighting over bragging rights, it seems that the cooperative American spirit has been completely lost.
I have an idea about how we might kill two birds with one stone: Extendible Limits. After a candidate has served the maximum years allowed by law, a vote of the governing body-- by private ballot-- in which he has served might allow him to stand for re-election: a simple majority would be required for the first post-limit election, and with each successive election bid an increasingly higher required majority would be required: 53%, 56%, etc.
And for the executive office, perhaps candidacy beyond the basic term limits would require those percentages of both houses.
The impact from this could be large. 'Good old boys' who cut self-serving deals-- and who are not above cutting a few corners in the process-- will quickly find themselves unable to stand for reelection. Those who choose to do the real work of democracy, cobbling together coalitions, and negotiating to identify consensus opinions, will find their influence constantly increasing.
The deadwood, the dirtballs, will find themselves limited to a very few terms. They will exert very little influence on the system, and quickly leave.
The very best people we produce will rise, and serve as an example to all who follow. Those with skill, and vision, and a passion for democracy, will quickly grow in stature and respect. And the length of time they serve will be in direct correlation to their talents.
