The notion that only one person — the incumbent — can do the job well is absurd. Problematically, we continue to elect the incumbent because of name recognition and party affiliation rather than a proven track record. Realistically, there is usually someone just as qualified to take over the incumbent’s office.
The problem is that many people think that the playing field for unelected versus a incumbent are equal and fair. Not True!
Term limits are not necessary because members of Congress must be regularly re-elected. If they are not doing a good job in office, we can simply vote for someone else.
While this would happen in an ideal world, historically the incumbent is re-elected 90% of the time. The playing field is simply not level between incumbents and challenging candidates
The problem is that many people think that the playing field for unelected versus a incumbent are equal and fair. Not True!
Term limits are not necessary because members of Congress must be regularly re-elected. If they are not doing a good job in office, we can simply vote for someone else.
While this would happen in an ideal world, historically the incumbent is re-elected 90% of the time. The playing field is simply not level between incumbents and challenging candidates
In the Congress the ability of the incumbent to raise monies for their reelection far outdoes the results for the challenger. Again the notion that there is a level playing field here does not exist.
The challenger and the incumbent are not starting out on a equal footing. The fact is the incumbent has more the 10 times the ability to raise his votes. This is why we must have Term Limits!
No comments:
Post a Comment