Lengthen Term Limits for Representatives to Accomplish More

The Congressional level officials are rather unknown bodies of the American government. These people have an important role in the legislative branch, however not many citizens are actually aware of the people performing these duties. A main reason around half of the constituents do not know the names of their representatives is due to the lack of trust from the public to their representative.

As Mayhew wrote, the congressmen engage in three activities throughout their term that have to do with re-election, “Advertising,” “Credit Claiming,” and “Position Taking.” These activities are self-explanatory, and a clear depiction of congressional officers primary focuses. I will not say that it is completely their fault, when it comes to them spending a majority of their time focusing on re-election, because the term limits for these Representatives are every two years. When in office, two years is not a lot of time to get things accomplished, so this limited term restricts the congressional members from doing large, noticeable improvements for their constituents. James Madison wrote in Federalist #52 about how the representative branch should, “have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people” (Hamilton). The original idea of keeping these members dependent on the public is still a wise idea, however it can be argued that the members do not have time to focus on anything but the public. Yes, that sounds good in theory, but these members still need time to go vote and compel arguments for bills that need to be passed. The representatives even need time to come up with their own arguments to improve their districts, but with only two years to do so the members are unable to make a big difference.

I believe, although it would be difficult to do so, congress could raise the term limits to at least three years, if not four years. The three year term limit would still allow for the representatives to be reliant on their constituents, however it slows down the rush to be re-elected. Thus, giving the members more time to do their actual job and become more politically active in Congress. A four-year limit would be good when thinking about the political process, however I could see this taking the dependence off of the public with that long of a term. The Congressmen need to be close to their constituents, and be able to help their district when the time comes to be active in the House.

Hamilton, Alexander, and James Madison. “Federlist No. 52.” Constitution Facts, Oak Hill Publishing, www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-52.

10 Responses to "Lengthen Term Limits for Representatives to Accomplish More"

Yanbin Zhang says:

November 18, 2017 at 12:10 am

It’s is really interesting and constructive to find the historical base of the representation system in congress. Designed by those framers, the very first mission of the congress is to make voice for people in the legislative institution and then to pass the deliberate bills or laws. Although it is now controversial whether or not the congress is efficient to make change responding to people’s will, the efficiency was not the most important standard when the congress was designed.
As the well-designed structure of the congress, the term limit for both House and Senate shall be set deliberately. Compared with the 6-year term of senators, representatives are working on shorter term of 2 years. They probably don’t have enough time to carry out practical change and improvement for their constituents, but they are more capable to listen to people and fully reflect the will of people based on smaller district. Though such independence would lead congressmen more care about activities helpful for their reelection, it would indeed push congressmen to try to fully and completely represent the people. The most important role of representative is to play as the mouthpiece of people, rather than problem solver. The more frequent reelection in House would more quickly correspond to the changing opinion among people. Ron Paul, a representative of Texas, had stayed in office for over 20 years due to his excellent work as a representative. So the term limit shall not be a problem for a really good representative to make change happen.
The term limit is not considered a serious problem now may also because the House and Senate would supplement each other in real work. While House is more responsible to reflect what people are thinking about for the country, the Senate is expected to carry out more practical solution or bills to the issues due to their long term. So the intercooperation within congress makes it function as it was expected.
Jackson Krase says:

November 18, 2017 at 2:38 pm

With a RealClearPolitics Congressional disapproval average of 73.4 percent, it is clear that there is a widespread atmosphere of Congressional dissatisfaction throughout the vox populi of the American opinion. Moreover, your blog post did a good job in highlighting the ways in which the biennial nature of elections in the House of Representatives causes many inefficiencies such as House Members spending a majority of their time focusing on re-election bids. Two years is a preposterously condensed time period to become somewhat proficient in matters of domestic policy and foreign affairs. These matters are fundamental to America’s health in our world and by giving representatives four years, they will have more time to gain a deeper and more absolute understanding of these issues. Another excellent point you made was that four years would allow House members to attend to more concerns within their district while promoting greater interaction between voters and politicians. A study conducted by Ernesto Dal Bó and Martín A. Rossi titled Term Length and the Effort of Politicians advance this argument by illustrating how larger political term limits parallel increased participation on the part of the elected officials. Administered in Argentina, the study randomly assigned politicians to either two or four-year terms and found that “The legislators who served the four-year terms spent more time giving floor speeches, had better rates of attendance and introduced and ratified more bills than their shorter-term colleagues.” The Senate of the United States illustrates this notion, as it tends to be seen as relatively more stable than the House.
Despite the benefits of doubling House members constitutionally allocated time to four years, I believe that its implication is unlikely as it would require the constitution to be amended by two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate, (has not occurred since 1992) which in this highly partisan era of politics, is doubtful to be accomplished. Furthermore, extended House terms would not get rid of hostile legislative turmoil that embodies the capital. Despite this, while two-year terms promote an environment of fund-raising-focused and fragmented governing, four years terms will provide more time for House members to gain more understanding in policy issues and represented the district from which they were elected to serve.

Link to RealClearPolitics Congressional Job Approval Polls: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

Link to Term Length and the Effort of Politicians:
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/dalbo/Term%20Length%20Final.pdf
Esteban Lara says:

November 18, 2017 at 11:42 pm

This is a very good point, and one that I often like to consider. I have heard several convincing arguments for both sides, because some people also believe that it’s absolutely necessary to change politicians even if they’re doing a relatively good job. This usually argue that this is because it’s important to change the perspective and direction from the government. I still believe that terms should be extended, though, because I agree that this will help ensure politicians worry less about campaigning and more time on their actual job.
Helen Spiller says:

November 19, 2017 at 1:41 pm

I have never really thought about the possibility of increasing election term limits but I definitely think it is an interesting proposal that could certainly provide benefits to the government. I definitely think it’s true that congress is so focused on reelection that it takes away from the actual work themselves of congressmen; however, I think the term limits do keep a constant flow in government and ensure accountability with such frequent elections. There are many benefits that need to be taken into account of the two year term limit. It keeps ideas fresh and current with constantly having new members in congress and forcing reflection. The shorter terms prevent against corruption with little time to dominate congress and make power hungry decisions.
However, you are definitely right, and Mayhew as well, that the congressmen focus far too much on reelection instead of the job itself. The two terms prevent growth in congress and building strong relationships to be effective over time. There is no time for growth and expertise when the congressmen are too strongly focused on reelection. Overall, I think it is a very interesting argument but it is important to look at both the positives and negatives of the situation. While three years would definitely allow for more time to focus on the issues and grow expertise, it also takes away from the fresh ideas and accountability that two year terms provide.

https://apecsec.org/pros-and-cons-of-congressional-term-limits/
Terrin Tropea says:

November 19, 2017 at 8:55 pm

This is an interesting point, especially because of how it relates to other facets of the government as well. Do you think the same amount of distractions from reelection are prevalent in the Presidential elections as well? I certainly have seen it in past presidencies, as both Barack Obama and George W. Bush spent much of their time in the last year of their term campaigning instead of focussing on key issues they promised to address in their previous campaign. As a result, it is often the case that Presidents running for reelection are criticized for issues they promised to address but failed to follow through with (which could;e been avoided had they avoided campaigning in the first place. As a result, I definitely agree that terms must be increased, especially for congressman whose term only last two years.

However, many will criticize this opinion because it begins to take away from the checks and balances that are placed on congressman. However, as was stated in the article, it is clear that a four year term, like that of the President, allows for adequate time and scrutiny under the public eye.
Alice Depasse says:

November 19, 2017 at 10:47 pm

It is very clear that there are serious limitations to having congressmen running for reelection every two years. As already mentioned, it takes focus away from leading the country effectively because individuals are focused on their image instead. This concern for reelection can be even worse than distracting congressmen, because they may be so concerned with their public platform that they may support legislation that they know will not be successful in the long term but may give quick results that they can then brag about. This is potentially very dangerous, because if every congressman is pushing legislation that will help their reputation but perhaps not a long term solution, then every term will see a new “bandaid” solution on the countries problems. This would mean that no problems get taken seriously enough to be fixed until a truly dire situation arises.
Therefore, the idea of having longer terms seems like a very logical solution. Your clarification that these politicians would still need to be held accountable by the general public is important, however this would still be the case even if the term limits were extended to 4 years or even 5 years. The French presidential terms were reduced to 5 years from 7 years in 2000, to prevent complacency. Perhaps pushing the congressional elections to every 4 years, would be the best solution.
Bradley Schuermann says:

November 19, 2017 at 11:51 pm

Maybe it’s possible that our Congressmen focus so much on reelection because the American population has shown time and time again they have little interest in the affairs of Congress. If the American population cares so little, the only hope for reelection is campaigning for it. Since their time is mostly consumed by reelection, there is no time for our Congressional representatives to actually make a difference and develop a political image that might catch the eye of American voters. Congressmen run to entice voters and then America turns away again, bored with the same stagnation caused by Congress always running for reelection, until the time comes again for Congressional positions to be voted on once more. It’s a never ending circle of political inactivity. Perhaps the only way to break the cycle is for our Congressmen to run based on their merit, not their campaign budget, but with their competitors taking the easy route to victory, how can we expect anything different.
Kevin Todd says:

November 19, 2017 at 11:55 pm

I think this is an interesting idea you bring up. I agree that it is difficult for most representatives to accomplish some things due to lack of time. However I do not think the term should be elongated. I feel that if the term for this members was made longer it would allow them to still not accomplish much yet for a longer amount of time. I think the short term gives them the incentive to try to accomplish as much as possible and if they were given more time they might slow down their approaches. I do think though that the longer term limits could help but I think there would be more negatives to it. I think the short term limits create new ideas and viewpoints to constantly be brought into account. This helps bring out a variety of outlooks and can help determine how to make the most effective decision moving forward.
Marcin Jerzewski says:

November 20, 2017 at 2:37 am

I believe that your post discusses a very important issue – how do we reconcile the need to limit the length of political terms to ensure that our representatives remain responsive to the people, and the fact they actually need time to develop relevant expertise to get things done? I, too, find two-year terms insufficiently long (and particularly costly to the American taxpayer), so I think your proposal to extend the legislative terms merits serious consideration.

What occurs to me as particularly interesting is that the two-year cycle is actually a compromise, partially meant to appease those who advocated for even shorter terms (https://goo.gl/wXNS3u). Anti-Federalists demanded annual elections, which constituted a standard in many state legislatures at the time (https://goo.gl/jgfpm4). Madison acknowledged in Federalist #53 that 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.

It is also interesting to observe that several state legislatures have considered extending term limits. For instance, in April 2017, lawmakers in the N.C. House have voted on House Bill 193 (https://goo.gl/qKRdQE). The bill House would have scheduled a November 2018 constitutional referendum on the proposal to give legislators four-year terms – instead of the current two-year terms – and limit lawmakers to three terms in office, or 12 years total. And while the lawmakers in North Carolina decided to reject this proposal, it is important to see that the discussion about inefficiency of two-year legislative terms is already taking place at state level, and even makes it onto the agendas of lawmakers. Should two-year terms be actually extended in some of the state legislatures, this could really give a momentum to a constitutional change permitting extending terms at the federal level.

Additionally, examples from other countries show us that longer legislative terms are actually benefitial. Argentina served as a ground for a fascinating natural experiment – where in 1983 elections, newly chosen lawmakers were randomly assigned a two- or four-year term of office. Political scientists Ernesto dal Bó and Martín Rossi found that longer was better. The representatives to whom four-year terms were assigned proved to be more active in the legislature. According to the data analyzed by dal Bó and Rossi, they spent more time giving floor speeches, had better rates of attendance and introduced and ratified more bills than their shorter-term colleagues. The scholars argued: “Shorter terms appear to discourage effort not due to campaign distractions but due to an investment payback logic: when effort yields returns over multiple periods, longer terms yield a higher chance of capturing those returns. A broader implication is that job stability may promote effort despite making individuals less accountable.”
Jackson Puckey says:

November 28, 2017 at 5:46 pm

Your post is extremely interesting, especially because I just watched a John Oliver clip on how much time many Congressmen are forced to spend (by necessity and by their party committees) fundraising for their reelection campaigns and for their party campaign committee. This need for fundraising, a symptom of the problem of rapidly increasing campaign costs, is certainly damaging to how much governing is actually done. However, I am not sure if lengthening the members’ terms will fix this problem. As you stated, Madison and the other architects of the Constitution intended for the House to be more in-tune with the wills of the electorate. Since Members of the House of Representatives have the option to act either as delegates or as trustees, they are not obligated to do exactly what their constituents want in every situation. Because of this, the only option voters have to express their dissatisfaction (or, in few cases, satisfaction) with their representative is to vote in regular elections. Likewise, the midterm elections also act as a good barometer for the success of the president and his party, allowing the party which controls the executive branch to change tack if necessary. All of these factors contribute to the nature of American election cycles. While I do agree that House members spend far too much time fundraising, I believe the way to remedy this is to place spending limits on such elections, rather than elongating their terms. As of now, such limits are against the law, however I feel as though this would be the best way to force the House to focus more on the will of the people than their own campaign war chest.

Comments are closed.