As we know, there are pros and cons to term limits, mostly dealing with incumbency, fund raising and subject matter expertise. Instead of throwing everyone out to be replaced by a bunch of novices (or worse yet, handpicked successors), why not require a referendum vote on incumbents at specified intervals?
This would allow incumbents to be evaluated on their own merits, rather than as the lesser of two evils. If they received less than 50% of the vote, they would not be allowed to run for reelection. This would also even the playing field for new elections, since none of the candidates would have the power of incumbency behind them.
What do you think about this idea?
This would allow incumbents to be evaluated on their own merits, rather than as the lesser of two evils. If they received less than 50% of the vote, they would not be allowed to run for reelection. This would also even the playing field for new elections, since none of the candidates would have the power of incumbency behind them.
What do you think about this idea?