Jump to content
I think it is a good idea. If democracy truly works, you have to have faith in the elector-it. Term limits are not as limiting as the voters: if the voters want to keep them, then they should stay; if the voters do not want to keep them, then they can vote them out. Term limits also discourage younger candidates: an 8 year max career is not much of an incentive. If you have a skilled elected position, and someone is doing their job well; they should be allowed to stay if the voters choose to let them.
I don't disagree that it isn't a dichotomy--the days of the Daley political machine remind us of out of check politics--but still the best prevention of corruption is a well informed voter. Corruption can also come about when all qualified persons have served, and are not alotted more terms. Not saying we have a shortage of qualified individuals but the learning curve for some elected positions can be upwards of 4 years; then it's back to campaigning, or cruising the classifieds.
I believe term limits should be eliminated all together, after all we do have term limits, it is called "don't re-elect the person". You are correct Mr. Hess the learning curve is huge for some elected positions and term limits does discourage highly qualified younger candidates from running for office when they know they'll have to find another job in 8 years. The results of term limits in the last general election resulted in just playing musical chairs in the courthouse. If the voters in Moffat County really do want term limits why do they elect the same people into office but just to a different elected position?
yep ! the best term limits are when the voters say "you ain't makin it" and throw the person out.
listen folks, when congressmen or big time govt. politicians get voted out they can just go back to their lawyer job and continue life. when your sheriff gets term limited he either has to retire (tims too young) or go to work as a deputy (more than a bit embarrasing) people who dedicate their lives to law enforcement rarely know any other way to make a living. plus you get a really good sheriff and have to kiss him good by in 8 years. i have been a real fan of allowing local officials to stay in office if they are doing a good job. if this makes it on the ballot, stop and ask yourself if each of the officials involved are doing a good job or not, then vote what makes sense.
tims a very good man, has he done a good job ? and don't be fooled, tim would certainly run again if it was offered. ask yourself how many sheriffs you have had with the courage to tell the governor to take his stupid gun laws and shove them. i cannot speak for the others as i don't live in craig at the moment, as a native i will certainly come back when the time is right, i just hope you haven't run all the good help off by that time.
remember, you can trust folks like jantz, and after all whats most important ?
I think there is a compelling case to extend the term limits in a rural community like Craig. As was already mentioned multiple times - it's not like we're indefinitely extending their tenure, they still have to get re-elected. But at least this way we aren't arbitrarily getting rid of quality leaders.
I think term limits are more important on the state and national levels where the talent pool is larger and the stakes are higher.
Bronc I agree. I firmly believe that at the local level the elector-it is more informed about candidates than at the national level. In a federal congressional race, with no term limits, and all the powers of Article I of the Constitution, we get five second ads and hour debates. Locally we get years of knowing these people.
So yeah, I get it now. Its a popularity contest. Kinda like when I was in hi-school and was asked to vote for the homecoming queen. I didn't then, and I won't now. What do they really do anyway except pave, grade or plow the road to their house in the winter?
Posting comments requires a free account
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.