This can either be a very good thing or be very bad. If the power of the governor exceeds the ability of the people around him and he begins the inebriation process of too much power. What happens if the Governor decides that the process by which the government is normally run is against his wishes? What happens if no one is able to stop him? What happens if his power is too great? Well for one thing he hopefully will make mistakes and lose the election for the presidency of the United States. (Fingers crossed)
I suggest that just like the presidency of the U.S. we should set a term limit on the Governor of Texas. I am not saying that the power that can be achieved is totally bad. In fact if the Governor is exceedingly smart and has the Wisdom of Solomon himself he can make the entire state better. The likelihood of this occurring is unfortunately quite low. So setting a term limit can prevent any corruption or drunkenness of power that could possibly occur.
"The longer a source of authority is in control, the longer it is able to accrue power around itself." Thus begins a post by my colleague, Stephen Warne, entitled "The Power of Time." Though lacking any outside sources, Warne logically argues that if an authority gains to much power, there is a very real potential that the authority will abuse it (through corruption, etc).
ReplyDeleteBecause he is advocating a policy change, we assume that Mr. Warne's audience is policy makers and voters. Therefore, he suggests that there be a term limit for the Texas governor--meaning that a single person can only have a limited number of four-year terms. Warne sites the the federal presidential term limit as an example, since presidents can only be elected twice.
Overall, Mr. Warne's argument makes sense: as the governors time in office goes on, he attains more power and influence (for example, he can appoint around 2000 people to various offices if given enough time). If we change who is in power every few years, it ensures that the state is not driven by the agenda of a single individual. However, the argument would have been significantly strengthened had Warne looked at some of the objections to term limits.
First of all, term limits could constrain voter's choice and possibly force them to vote for a substandard candidate. For instance, what if there is an excellent governor who have served two terms, and must therefore step down, but there is no other candidate that is an acceptable replacement?
Secondly, if a governor knows that they do not have the option of being elected again, they have no reason to fully listen to the opinion of voters. This could potentially, in extreme cases, lead to four years of leadership that is intentionally dismissive of the opinion of the public.
A good way to look at whether a course of action is legitimate is to look at its use in the past. In 2009, The Statesman's editorial board wrote an article entitled "Time for term limits? Let the voters decide" in which they pointed out that (according to the National Governors Association) 37 states place term limits on their governors. Widespread does not necessarily mean advisable, but it shows that there are many poeple who think it is a good idea.
To conclude, both approaches are used in state governments across the nation, so there doesn't seem to be one clearly preferable option. There are legitimate arguments on both sides, but in the end, I think the decision of term limits should simply be left to Texas voters. Though Warne argues logically and compellingly, going deeper into the topic and the objections against it would have strengthened his claims.
In my colleagues post "The power of time" he discusses the unlimited number of terms the Governor of Texas can stay in office and what effect this can have on the people. Compared to the President of the United States who may only be in office for two terms, then must step down, the Governor of Texas has the power to remain in office as long as possible with the exception of being impeached.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the power the Governor of Texas has could result in negative outcomes. After all, we are the ones who vote in the end, we have the final say. The Governor does not make any rash decisions that will upset the public because they know they need our support to remain in power. I see how the length of time in office such as Governor Perry's can prove success and invite favoritism, but change will happen eventually, whether it is trying to move up and become President, or an embarrassing fail in your campaign and eventually resigning.
I do not agree that there is any essential need for a change in the Governor of Texas's limit in office. I don't believe Governor Perry has, nor will he exceed and abuse his power as the Governor. The Governor is just a man looking for votes and support because in the end, that's what he relies on.