[69] in libertarians
Re: Ballot Access Help
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vernon Imrich)
Mon Jul 11 21:56:35 1994
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 94 21:53:04 -0400
From: vimrich@flying-cloud.mit.edu (Vernon Imrich)
To: pde@sd.inri.com
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU
>The MA ballot does not directly apply to me since I am registered to vote in
>CA, but why would Term Limits be favorable from a Libertarian point of view?
>It seems to restrict one's freedom to vote for whom he or she chooses.
There is a lot of misunderstanding regarding Term Limits, a lot of it sadly
coming from its supporters. Term limits is not required because we are
too stupid or ignorant for democracy, it is required because we are TOO
capable, and often too clever. The voters, as much a part of government when
they vote as their reps are when their reps vote, are just as much in need of
checks and balances between themselves as their representatives are.
Term limits is a necessary extension of the idea of "balance of power" that
the founders started. They knew that elections alone were not enough of a
check on the system of government. Thus, they broke up the government into
three branches, one of which is not even subject to elections directly, and
separated the powers. This was the first limit on who we could vote for.
Only 1 rep, 2 senators and 1 president each. Then, even after that, they
amended the constitution further with the Bill of Rights. It said that even
if the majority of us DID vote for some things (like anti-speech laws, or
revoking jury trials) we could not have them. The constitution sets out
exactly what we could vote for because we cannot simply vote for anything
without abusing the power of voting. Without a commitment to balance, rights,
and due process, democracy is nothing more than mob rule. The precedent for
limiting the voters is because government is power. In a democracy that power
is confered to the people. The voters are just as likely to abuse this power
as those they vote for.
The specific imbalance that term limits attacks is procedural. The idea is
that through rules and other process manipulations, incumbants will attract
more power than challengers -- regardless of competence or idealogy. This
is a systematic flaw. There is no incentive for anyone IN office to
set it straight, as they are all incumbants and all benefit from rules
giving more power to incumbants. Even a 1 termer has an advantage over
a challenger in that s/he is that much closer to the leadership and
may have already made several contacts. A short examination of the process
in congress will show that almost all legislative action today must
pass through the 15-20 most powerful legislators or die.
This imbalance of power means several things. The ethical voter must
face a terrible choice: vote for the incumbant you disagree with, but who
will at least keep your district protected because of the power s/he
holds; or, vote for a challenger you really like, but who will have no
power to enact any of those ideas, and further, will not even be able to
protect the district as well as it is now.
For those that agree with the incumbant, "he's down there fighting for us,
getting us all he can!" this leads to a different problem. Pretty soon,
everyone else, as a matter of self defense or political survival, elects
THEIR rep to go down and "fight for them" (bring home the bacon). Pretty
soon, the country is bankrupt trying to eek out all that bacon. There is
no way the voters can stop this. The voters in powerful districts LIKE
getting all the goods and will not vote their guy out. The voters in
middle power districts wait eagerly for their time. The voters in the least
powerful districts can't improve their situation no matter what they do
so they might as well wait to get in the middle category and let some
other poor saps line up behind them.
Originally this imbalance of power was not very threatening. Mostly, the
lelgislative rules were to encourage deliberation. There was not that much
for one district to gain over another if the laws focused on things like
the latest treaty with France, or whether murder was a capital offense.
But with the New Deal and subsequent explosion of government services in the
last 50 years the imbalance can be used to get more and more for one's
district or deflect more and more onto other's districts. In the first
hundred and thrity or so years, services accounted for only a few percent
of federal spending. In the last 60 or so, they have accounted for the
large majority of spending (social security, entitlements, pork, and so on).
That is why we didn't really see this need until now.
As the voters became more and more informed, and more and more savvy,
they realized very quickly that the best thing to do was keep sending
back incumbants to sap more power for themselves. At the same time,
luckily, we began to realize where this would eventually lead. For the
last couple decades or so we've tried to "round up" all the congressional
bastards that we sent down their with the election of presidents. But
the president has insufficient power over congress (for good reason).
We have to go for another solution to balance the power in congress.
Term limits is the best of those solutions. It is a formal agreement
to "end the arms race" between voter and voter. "We'll loose Kennedy
if you loose Dole." Further it adds an incentive to be fair for whoever
the leaders are, as they will soon be on the taking end of the next
round of leaders. It is wiser than simple rules reform (such as removing
senority rules) in that it cannot be "worked around" by still other rules
or be manipulated for political reasons (all one need do is look at how
political the drawing of voting districts is and how the courts still
cannot seem to make it fair even with strong legislation mandating it).
It is purely procedural, idealogically blind, and can therefore be applied
evenly without much need for judicial review, or partisan politics.
Lastly, it prevents ALL of the powers of incumbancy from being abused
rather than just a targeted few.
There are costs to government efficiency. But then again, separating
government into three branches (and one of those separated into two more)
is not exactly without cost to efficiency. I think the term they use
is "gridlock" (which is how it should be if we cannot agree on what
to do with power). There are costs to our voting autonomy as individuals.
But then again, we are already prohibited for voting for dictators,
kings, one person for two or more offices at the same time, or even voting
to stop Nazi's from marching. These costs are all in the name of checking
and balancing the power of government from those (inculding ourselves) who
might be corrupted by that power. History has shown that they have been
well worth it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Vernon Imrich |"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; |
| MIT OE | IT IS FORCE. Like FIRE, |
| Rm 5-329B | it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." |
| 617-253-3910 | - George Washington |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
