Skip to main content

We Need to Extend Term Limits for Members of the House



Extend Term Limits for Members of the House
            The House needs to elongate its’ terms to more than two years if it wants to be effective. For the amount of policy that needs to get through Congress, the current system is not working. That is because every two years, the House welcomes in new people that have to blend with incumbents, and it is a rebuilding process that occurs way too often.
            Every time a Congressman is elected to a seat, it takes time to learn the legislative process and adjust to the new position. However, they are not being given that time and before they are able to effectively create the policy their constituents elected them for, their term is nearly up, and they are focused on running for re-election with nothing to show from their work the last two years. Members of the House become consumed with fund-raising targets for the upcoming election and have little to no time to study the budget or read the bills they are voting on. Constituents should feel the need for their Representative to be informed about the policies that are shaping our country and that means more time should be laid out for terms. 
            
            James Madison and our other Founding Fathers could not predict the amount of people we have in the government today. There are currently 435 elected officials serving in the U.S. House of Representatives and every seat is up for re-election in 2020. If our elected officials are distracted by their re-election campaign while they are currently in office, then that takes away from their duty that the population elected them for. Madison writes about the future of the republic, “however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude,” (Avalon Project, Federalist Papers No. 10). Madison continues with “Elections could theoretically be held “daily, weekly, or monthly, as well as annual[ly], but “the knowledge requisite for federal legislation” requires a longer term in office.  (Avalon Project, Federal Papers No. 53). A competent legislator understandably needs more than a year to settle in and learn the process before they are fixated on re-election.

            In contrast, the two-year term is a trial-and-error for constituents. The elected official is currently there because the voters placed them there. They promised certain points to their voters while on the campaign trail and if those wishes are not being fulfilled, then why are you there? It is understandable that constituents do not want their elected officials to get too comfortable in their seats because they believe that the more relaxed, they are, the less work will get accomplished. But there is a difference between looking over somebody’s shoulder for two years and sitting back and watching what they can achieve in a four-year term. There has been an ongoing debate about setting term limits in order to prevent incumbents from running for a seat six times. If there were longer terms, then the amount of times an elected official can run for re-election could be significantly reduced.
However, because Members of Congress are continually thinking about their upcoming election, they are forced to resort to the delegate model (Adler, 2058). The delegate model explains that an elected official becomes a voice for what their constituents want, which is acceptable before an election, but there is much more after. Senators take on more of a trustee role after they take office because they are given access to more information about the policies and want to make the best decision for their constituents, whether it goes along with what they ran on during their election or not. That is the role that Members of Congress should be taking on. Once they are assigned to committees and they learn more, they become more educated than the average voter and therefore become more trustworthy to vote.
            Overall, the perpetual cycle of newly elected officials every two years takes away from the reason they are there in the first place: to pass legislation. If the Constitution was amended to extend House terms from two years to four years, it would significantly increase productivity in the legislative process and help U.S. Representatives follow through on their promises for constituents. If given more time, Members of the House hopefully would be able to create policies with more moderate proposals that would not get repealed when the incoming Representatives are elected. 


Works Cited
Adler, E. Scott, et al. The United States Congress. W.W. Norton & Company, 2019.

Madison, James. “The Federalist Papers No. 10.” Avalon Project - Documents in Law,                     History and Diplomacy, 1787, avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp.

“US 2018 Mid-Terms in Charts: Should Donald Trump Be Worried?” BBC News, BBC, 2                    Nov. 2018, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44314914.






Comments

  1. KaitlynAndersonSeptember 23, 2019 at 8:01 PM

    This was a really well written post! I completely agree with a lot of the points made here. I think that the House should have a longer term. With an election every two years, this gives House members maybe just over a year of being able to completely focus on doing what they were elected to do. After a year, House members have to begin thinking about and running a campaign for re-election. If the term was moved to 4 years, this would allow the House member more time to get comfortable and focus on making and passing legislation that would benefit the people of their constituency.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jack ButlerSeptember 24, 2019 at 5:04 PM

    I like the points you bring up in your post! I think it is hard to put a limit on how many representatives can be in congress. You bring up good points about the time that the election cycle is pretty short. Too bad majority of their weekly schedule is full of making call to donors for reelection. I feel like they would get more done if they didnt do this, and actually could accomplish their set out goals.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mary LeonardSeptember 25, 2019 at 9:18 AM


    Good job! I agree, I feel like with any job, by the time someone hits two years, that’s when the finally are getting settled in and have the swing of things. With a position as important as being a Representative, there shouldn’t be constant turnover and the need to get someone to re-adapt to the job. When their time spent in office is spent worrying about getting reelected soon, they can’t give the job the attention it needs. I also think that four years would be a better term for Representative. By four years, the incumbent understands the job pretty well, and the constituents can decide whether they did a good job or not.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

TABOR and Colorado Politics Post-CC

       One of the more contentious topics within Colorado politics is budgeting and funding for projects, education, and revenue intake. This came to a head in this year's election with Proposition CC. Despite failing at the ballot box, the Democratic Party is pushing ahead with the 2020 legislative agenda that includes drafts to eliminate the Tax Payer's Bill of Rights or amend it to ensure more accessible revenue for the party's policy objectives. What is critical to the debate is the increasing partisan divide within Colorado, the historical shift from Republican control to Democrat trifectas in state government, and the institutional mechanisms that have hampered strategy for the dominant party. Also, in the mix are interest groups that influence local politics which can help uncover party strategy from another perspective.        The Colorado Fiscal Institute (CFI) a left-leaning think tank, is a key player in this battle, authoring s everal...
6 comments
Read more

Colorado Legislation and Arms Limitations

The Columbine High School shooting that took place in 1999 claimed the lives of 15 people and wounded 28. Since then the topic of gun control has sparked debates supporting both sides of the argument and from state to state the laws of carrying differs. As of now, a very brief summary of Colorado state law concerning personal arm restrictions are: "Colorado law also allows a person to possess a handgun in a dwelling, place of business, or automobile. However, when you carry the weapon into your home, business, hotel room, etc. it must be in plain view" (colorado.gov). And according to the National Rifle Association for Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), in Colorado, there is no Permit to Purchase required for a rifle, shotgun or handgun. There is no required Registration of Firearms for rifles, shotguns or handguns. There is no Licensing of Owner for rifles, shotguns or handguns, and there is no permit to carry rifles or shotguns, however, a permit to carry is requi...
4 comments
Read more

Insulin cap in Colorado

In the United States, the topic of medication prices has increased substantially, specifically insulin. Insulin is a medication used to treat type one Diabetes which typically costs a thousand dollars or more depending on how much you need, and how much your insurance is willing to pay. Colorado changed this with a bill designed to put a cap on the copay for insulin. The bill HB19-1216 was signed into law by Governor Jared Polis in May of 2019. This bill states that “a carrier that provides coverage for prescription insulin drugs pursuant to the terms of a health coverage plan the carrier offers shall cap the total amount that a covered person is required to pay for a covered prescription insulin drug at an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars per thirty-day supply of insulin, regardless of the amount of type of insulin needed to fill the covered person’s prescription.” This bill will go into effect on January 1st, 2020 and will be overseen by the department of law who will investi...
7 comments
Read more