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

The Two-Party System: Possible Impacts on Polarization & Congressional Policy Making

Edward Baisley Prof. Matthew Hitt POLS 304 16 Oct. 2019 Blog Post 2 (Two Party System)             The two-party system in the United States of America has been an integral part of our political culture since the country’s inception in the 1700’s. Since then, our country has accepted this system as an inevitable part of how our nation’s leaders are chosen, nominated, and elected into office. Now days, when it comes to our contemporary national congress, both parties have spent an incredible amount of money and resources in an attempt to seize majority control in both the House and the Senate. This attempt to seize majority power in our legislative branch has led to a situation of heated competition. In fact, in recent history, we as citizens of this nation have seen our national Legislator become a partisan battle ground in which both parties and their members are seemingly polarized to an extent that the ...
2 comments
Read more

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

TABOR & Proposition CC: Providing Context to Colorado's Tax Problem

Edward Baisley Prof. Matthew Hitt POLS 304 Dec. 2019 Blog Post 3 (TABOR and Proposition CC) Colorado's tax system is very unique in comparison to pretty much every other state in the U.S. Arguably the biggest aspect of the tax system that is unique is the amendment to the Colorado Constitution known as TABOR or the Tax Payers Bill of Rights. This amendment which was drafted into law in 1992, has many implications for Colorado's state and local governments. One of the main implications is that TABOR requires the state and local governments of Colorado to acquire voter approval before any tax increase can be implemented. Some other more less known implications are detailed by Denver Post author Anna Staver, she explains that TABOR: “ Limits how many tax dollars governments can keep … It’s called the TABOR cap, anything a government collects above the cap gets returned as a TABOR tax refund … (TABOR) Limits when lawmakers can ask voters to raise taxe...
1 comment
Read more