Implementing term limits on all elected officials will change the political landscape in America to return power to voters. Limiting the number of terms an elected official can serve would discourage career politicians and restore the idea that elected officials are meant to be civil servants working for their constituents and not their own gain.
The city of Milwaukee has a career politician for mayor. Mayor Tom Barrett has been mayor for 16 years and has held an elected office for the past 31 years.
Barrett was a member of the Wisconsin State Assembly from 1989 to 1993, he served in the United States House of Representatives from 1993 to 2003, and he has been Mayor of Milwaukee since 2004. Barrett is running for re-election for the fifth time in the Milwaukee mayoral election on April 7.
Given the name recognition and financial resources that come with the incumbent advantage, it is not a surprise he has managed to create a career out of politics for so long.
While it can be called admirable that Barrett has committed a decade and half to the people of Milwaukee as mayor, I want to argue that it means that Milwaukee is not moving forward.
Regardless of party affiliation and what Barrett has done as mayor, when there is one person holding an office for as long as Barrett has, it can make the city stagnant. No new ideas or people are circulating through Milwaukee.
Sen. Lena Taylor is also on the April 7 ballot for the Milwaukee mayoral election. She has held an elected office since 2003, first in the state assembly and currently serves the state senate. In the mayoral primary she was 10,932 votes behind, according to unofficial totals reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Taylor says the results show Milwaukee wants a change, and I find myself agreeing.
One change Milwaukee should make is to limit the number of terms an elected official is allowed to serve. A limit on the number of terms an elected official is allowed to serve would increase community engagement, increase voter turnout and encourage new legislation.
Without name recognition from previous political terms, it would force politicians to engage and connect with the community they are campaigning in to convince the community why they deserve their votes. Candidates engaging the community would result in community members becoming more engaged with local government and politics.
The largest voter turnout America sees is in presidential elections while many local elections see very low turnout; I want to argue that local and state election outcomes are just as important and can have more impact on local people. If Milwaukee introduces term limits for their politicians it would also increase voter turnout and give more power to the voters. Candidates would need to successfully engage voters in order for them to get elected, and if the community does feel engaged then voter turnout will reflect that. Instead of campaigns being a competition about name recognition and how much money a candidate spends, campaigns will become more about which candidate engaged their community better.
With limited terms a politician can serve it would increase the incentive to get new legislation passed because they only have a limited time in office to get their ideas into the city.
Some critics of term limits say that each election is an opportunity for a term limit, given that it is a chance to vote politicians out of office. However, I argue that no matter the political party or politician, a city needs and deserves a change in leadership in order to bring new ideas and legislation into communities. The way to achieve this, and return power to voters, is by implementing term limits on elected officials.