A call for single-term elective service
By JEFF CONNAWAY
The current operation of our national government is seriously flawed by partisanship and by the primary, underlying goal of most elected officials to be re-elected. It is not only being a Republican, Democrat, or Independent that fosters partisanship, but also the endless competition and maneuvering for electoral advantage that the present system brings.
A fundamental change to the political landscape would be to limit the service in all elective offices to a single term. Every office holder would know the exact tenure of his service from the day he entered a given race. Thus being assured of a fixed, predictable course, he would be able to devote himself wholly to his work, knowing that his re-election was not an option. Every election would be held on a reasonably level playing field between two, (or more), new candidates. Presumably, this leveling of the playing field would also draw more candidates into the arena, and it would help to equalize each candidate’s exposure, name recognition, and accumulated public record.
Currently, when a person is elected to office, every action he takes and every decision he makes is evaluated, both by himself and by everyone else, as to its effect upon his re-election profile. Decisions made in this way often run counter to the true public interest. Conversely, if re-election concerns were never on the table, most public servants would simply do the jobs they were elected to, and we would have a more functional and more responsive government served by a more focused and broader sampling of our citizens. The concept of “career politician” runs counter to the principle of shared public service, and it works against our intention to elect those who are truly representative of us, the everyday people.
Moreover, the purposes and agendas of rich and powerful people can sometimes compromise the honest and ethical public service of our officials, and in ways that can be difficult to detect. Limiting the length of public service to a single term would go a long way to ensuring that our elected representatives maintain high ethical standards and are not unduly influenced by money or power. It would also considerably reduce the widespread motivation of the wealthy and powerful to support their favored politicians with large sums of money and other inducements. ooo
To balance the loss of accumulated elective experience that this change would bring to pass, the public interest might be well served to have elected officials hold office for somewhat longer periods of time. If so, we might adjust the lengths of terms of national offices as such:
President: 6 years Senator: 10 years Congressman: 4 years
Under this new method, elections for the House and Senate would be held every two years, just as they are now, and presidential elections would occur every third election cycle. Every two years, one half of the House positions and one fifth of the Senate seats would be open. Since we have 50 states, this would pencil out neatly.
The central issue here is not a given individual’s length of service, but the principle that each term of office, no matter how long it lasts, is available to any given candidate only once in his or her lifetime.
If certain office holders perform well and thereby develop significant public support, I suggest they be permitted to run for other offices: local, statewide, or national. However, to ensure that these representatives devote themselves to the duties of their present offices, politicians who aspire to different offices would be required to wait for one, two-year election cycle before they could begin new campaigns. Thus, four years would elapse between the conclusion of holding one office and the beginning of serving in another. For example, a successful politician on the national stage could serve as a congressman, senator, and as president, (in any order), totaling 20 years of service spanning a 28-year period.
I believe that this change, if made in a straightforward, uncomplicated form without loopholes, would go further to untangling the governmental gridlock that troubles our country than any other single, comprehensive change that could be made. In so doing, this significant evolution of our electoral system would also enable other constructive changes to the system to be brought forth more readily.
We, the people, are sovereign, and we have the legal right and the responsibility to make such proposed changes, if they are changes that the majority supports. And, if many of our current public officials find themselves aligned against this concept because its adoption might derail their political ambitions, this fact alone is not a sufficient reason to set this idea aside.
• • •
Editor’s note: Republished by author request from Jan. 29, 2011.
***
Jeff Connaway has been a resident of Coeur d’Alene since 1988. He owns and operates Silver Creek Signs and is chairman of the Coeur d’Alene Sign Board.