Step Up to Writing—Grade 11 Name: Argument Writing Baseline Assessment Grade: Class: Date: Source #1 Term Limits Would Mean a More Effective Congress by Sean McCollum 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 It has been said that “politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason.” Unfortunately, it has become very difficult to change the senators and representatives in the United States Congress. The electoral system greatly favors incumbent lawmakers over newcomers. Americans need to push for term limits to limit the number of years politicians can serve so that our elected officials remain responsive to their constituents—the people they represent. The reelection rates in the U.S. Congress are truly astonishing. In 2014, about 95 percent of incumbents won reelection in the House of Representatives; in the Senate, it was about 82 percent. Many representatives have served for 20 years or longer. Once elected, the chances of unseating these lawmakers shrink and they have fewer reasons to court voters and hold themselves accountable to their constituents. Incumbents have huge advantages when running for reelection. First of all, they usually are much better known than their challengers. Many lessinformed voters may vote for them simply because they recognize the name on the ballot. Second, once in power, these lawmakers may gerrymander voting districts, thus improving their own reelection chances. Gerrymandering is when the political party in power creates election districts that strongly favor their party, virtually guaranteeing their candidates will win. Third and most important, incumbents have financial advantages. Campaign donors give a lot more money to reelect incumbents than to elect newcomers. For example, in the 2014 federal election, the average incumbent senate candidate brought in 10 times the donations as compared to their challengers, according to the Federal Election Commission. Incumbent candidates for the House of Representatives raised 6 times the amount of their ©2016 Voyager Sopris Learning, Inc. All rights reserved. 40 45 50 55 60 65 opponents. More campaign cash means incumbent candidates can run more advertising, reaching more voters with their message. Financial support also gives big campaign donors influence over elected officials— much greater than the average American voter has. In theory, citizens can vote out a candidate they don’t trust or agree with. But incumbents have stacked the advantages in their favor. And with little concern they could actually lose, incumbents feel much less pressure to address the needs of the citizens they are supposed to represent. Term limits would help fix this unfair situation. A law is needed that would limit senators to two six-year terms and representatives to four two-year terms. Such a constitutional amendment already exists for U.S. presidents, who can only serve two four-year terms. Term limits would better serve Americans in three ways. First, it would inject new ideas into the political debate as new officials took office on a regular basis. Second, the shortened span in office could inspire lawmakers to lead and legislate with greater urgency and therefore reduce political gridlock. Third, it would reduce ongoing and unhealthy relationships around money and influence between donors and powerful incumbent lawmakers. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and the other Founding Fathers never intended for elected office to be a lifetime appointment. It is time to install term limits to make Congress more accountable to the people they are supposed to serve—the American people. Work Cited: Center for Responsive Politics. “Incumbent Advantage.” OpenSecrets.org. Center for Responsive Politics, n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2015. incumbent: an official seeking reelection gridlock: jam, blockage 2 Permission is granted to reproduce this page for Step Up to Writing classroom use. Step Up to Writing—Grade 11 Argument Writing Baseline Assessment Name: Grade: Class: Source #2 Adapted from “The Best Argument Against Term Limits? The Voters” 30 by Senator Ted Kaufman 5 10 15 20 25 The idea of limiting the number of terms anyone can serve in Congress has been around for a long time. Recently I have heard it proposed as a solution to gridlock in Washington. It would almost certainly have exactly the opposite effect, but I’ve also got other reasons to be against term limits. First, do we really want to limit the choices of the voters? If they want to keep re-electing someone, I believe they should have the right to make that decision. History, especially recent history, shows that voters are usually happy to return their own representatives. In the 2012 congressional elections, 91 percent of Senate and 90 percent of House incumbents were re-elected. That is in spite of the fact that Congress had a 21 percent approval rating nationally. The only way you can reconcile those statistics is by realizing that voters might want term limits for everybody else’s member of Congress but not for their own. In other words, when push comes to shove, many people who say they are for term limits don’t follow through on that belief when they get into the voting booth. The second reason I am against term limits is because the federal government is incredibly complicated. The real work in both houses of Congress is done in committees. There is a reason seniority has always been important in them. For example, it 35 40 45 50 55 Date: takes more than a term or two to fully understand the intricacies of tax law dealt with by members of the House Ways and Means Committee. The same kind of experience-driven expertise is needed in every major Congressional committee. Third, people who support term limits often say representatives who have served in Washington for a long time lose touch with their citizens back home. If anything, I believe the real problem is that people in Congress who keep running for office and getting re-elected become too much in touch with their constituents. Why? Because they serve two-year terms, our House members are constantly campaigning for reelection. Legislators in countries like Germany and England must stand for election far less often than ours do. The result is that our politicians are often too eager to reflect the current majority opinions in their districts. They shy away from taking on difficult long-term problems that won’t help them in the next election. Finally, let me get back to the gridlock problem. My question to those who propose term limits is simple: Which group do you think is more responsible for today’s gridlock in Congress, new members or old? Even term limit proponents agree it is the new members who refuse to compromise. The longer you spend in Congress, the more you understand that successful legislation nearly always requires compromise. Work Cited: Kaufman, Ted. “The Best Argument Against Term Limits? The Voters.” delewareonline. News Journal Media Group, 24 May 2014. Web. 13 Jan. 2015. Reprinted by permission of Senator Ted Kaufman. intricacy: complexity Source #3 U.S. Senate and House Reelection Rates, 1990–2010 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Election Cycle 2004 2006 2008 Senate 2010 House Work Cited: Center for Responsive Politics. ”Reelection Rates over the Years.” OpenSecrets.org. Center for Responsive Politics, n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2015. ©2016 Voyager Sopris Learning, Inc. All rights reserved. 3 Permission is granted to reproduce this page for Step Up to Writing classroom use.
