<<  <  >  >>

No. 328

December 16, 1998

WHAT TERM LIMITS DO THAT ORDINARY VOTING CANNOT

by Einer Elhauge

Executive Summary

"We already have term limits; they're called elections.

So why don't we just throw the bums out?"

Instead, voters

simultaneously cast their ballots for senior incumbents and

for term limits.  They do so for two primary reasons: senior-

ity clout and barriers to entry.  No district wants to uni-

laterally cede the power it has, and there may be no viable

alternative on the ballot.  All districts have to collective-

ly agree to turn out their senior incumbents to solve the col-

lective problem of unrepresentative legislators.

Term limits further important values of democratic

equality and freedom.  Term limits reduce inequalities in

legislative power across districts and over time.  More

important, term limits make democratic choice far freer.

Term limits solve a collective action problem and lessen the

seniority penalty that makes it difficult for districts to

oust ideologically unsatisfactory incumbents.  And term lim-

its reduce barriers to entry that discourage challengers and

thus limit ballot options.  Any furthering of those values

furthers core democratic objectives.

Term limits are particularly vital at a time when 99

percent of congressional incumbents who have spent more than

six years in office are reelected.

The arguments against term limits, while not illogical,

turn out to be so weak in fact or mixed in theory that none

can rebut the strong argument that term limits will enhance

the ability of electorates to have their views represented

by their elected officials.

____________________________________________________________

Einer Elhauge is a professor of law at Harvard Law School.