Vote No on Four

A mid the lofty rhetoric that so often accompanies the election season, this year's voters have issued a familiar refrain: Throw the bums out.

A resentment towards incumbents has swept the country this year, and Massachusetts is no exception. Question Four would deny ballot access to state and federal candidates who have served a specified number of terms in office. Such candidates could only be elected by write-in votes and, in the case of state offices, would serve without salary.

Term limits, the argument goes, would force jaded politicians out of office, and would assure that Boston and Washington are more in touch with constituents.

We don't buy it. In short, we feel term limits are silly and cowardly. Rather than promoting the democratic process, they in fact limit the power of the electorate by essentially denying the public the right to vote for certain candidates. While some incumbents have clearly been political players for too long, others are productive and merit our support.

And not only are term limits anti-democratic, but they can undermine the goal of making government more responsible to the people. The prospect of reelection often keeps a politician in closer touch with the voters. During a final term in office, an incumbent is completely unaccountable to his or her constituents.

Trying to increase challengers' chances for election is a worthy cause. But campaign finance reform, not term limits, is the proper course of action. Fairer elections will result by limiting the monetary power wielded by political parties and other special interests in campaigns, not by limiting the voters' choices.

Question Four has some good intentions, but it is a poor excuse for reform.