Elected officials on the federal level should absolutely be term limited! However term limits at the state and local levels are a completely different story. Locally, term limits are uncalled for because it is the people’s responsibility to ensure they have the right candidates in office, and if not, to replace them. It is up to you to decide…
The people may elect an ideal representative, loved by everyone, and would like him to stay in office for a long time. On the other hand, the people may elect someone they find out is not as great a choice. Implementing term limits allows for an efficient flow of fresh leadership.
Even if one likes the current official they have elected, there is a strong possibility that they may not like the next guy after him. Let’s say that the next guy elected is a poor choice with terrible policies, yet he keeps getting re-elected. The option of term limits guarantees that after so many re-elections, the incumbent will finally be forced to leave office. This can be a reassuring factor in the case that one wants to boot out their current official and cannot.
Term limits can also be very deterring. If a term limit is too short it can be restricting to a newly elected official. His term may end abruptly when he was just beginning to get the hang of it. He/she cannot rerun anymore because he/she used all of his/her terms. This process repeats itself with inexperienced representatives. This can be discouraging to Congress and the people!
Term limits ensure the rotation of matured officials out of a seat and give greater chances of election to the new candidates. It can be sad to see a good official leave, but it can also be very sought after to see a new face with a fresh platform. George Washington demonstrated his preference for term limits when he selflessly removed himself from re-election after serving two terms. I agree with Washington’s example in setting term limits for offices. It guarantees that one official does not control a seat for too long.
Daughter of Liberty 