In my previous column, I outlined how making voting more convenient would address one of the main barriers to participation. A second major issue is the widespread dislike of politicians themselves. A striking three-quarters of both Republican and Democratic voters say members of Congress do a very or somewhat bad job of (1) listening to the concerns of people in their district, (2) keep their personal financial interests separate from their political work, (3) working with the opposing party, and (4) taking responsibility for their actions.

If politicians seem uninterested in doing their jobs, why are they running for office? Voters on both sides believe the motives are self-servicing – to make a lot of money, run for higher-level office in the future, and get fame and attention for themselves. It is a damning indictment of the current state of politics. Politicians are not doing the job they were elected to do, and voters are fed up. Something must change. While we can’t force good people to run for office, we can make it easier for them to do so.

One popular proposal (supported by 82% of Republicans and 76% of Democrats) is to place age limits on those seeking office. Since the 1950s, the median age of members of Congress has risen by five years in the House and nine years in the Senate. In theory, voters could simply stop electing candidates they believe are too old, but in practice, unseating incumbents has become nearly impossible. Over the past 25 years, incumbents have won more than 90% of their races. There are several reasons for this—each of which will be explored in future columns—but for now, it’s worth noting that age limits are not the ideal solution. They border on age discrimination since there’s no reason to bar someone with a sharp mind and sound judgment from serving.

A better solution is term limits—an idea that also enjoys broad bipartisan support (90% of Republicans and 86% of Democrats). Limiting representatives to a set number of terms would address several problems: (1) It would open the door for fresh candidates by reducing the number of incumbents each election cycle. (2) It would likely lower the average age of representatives by preventing decades-long tenures. (3) It would curb the accumulation of personal power and influence among individual lawmakers.

The primary argument against term limits is that they would erode institutional knowledge and make governing more difficult. But that’s a weak objection, given the abysmal public perception of Congress’s effectiveness (less than 20% of voters have confidence in them).

Implementing term limits wouldn’t be easy—it would require a constitutional amendment. Still, the bipartisan support makes it far from impossible. In fact, states have the power to act on their own by calling for a constitutional convention if 34 state legislatures pass resolutions to do so. Encouragingly, 12 states, including our neighbors Alabama, Louisiana, and Tennessee, have already taken that step.

If politicians are unwilling to relinquish power, then it’s up to us, the citizens, to act. And in an age of deep political polarization, what better reminder that Americans can still come together than uniting behind a constitutional amendment to reform our government?

Dr. Raymond E. Barranco is professor of sociology at Mississippi State University. He earned his Ph.D. in Sociology from Louisiana State University, and his work has been published in multiple criminology and sociology journals. Dr. Barranco invites readers to send feedback and sociology-related questions you’d like him to address in this space to [email protected].

READER FAVORITES

• 

  Our View: When the chase becomes the danger

  By Dispatch Editorial Board • 2 days ago

• 

  Our View: Mississippi schools must adapt to fewer students

  By Dispatch Editorial Board • 17 hours ago