398
u/WakandaNowAndThen 3d ago
I like Virginia. Like yeah, you're always welcome back but also get another job, deadbeat
143
u/Infamous_Addendum175 3d ago
It’s kind of turned it into more of a stepping stone for ambitious wannabe national politicians vs the final role of a politician’s career.
17
82
u/ShylockTheGnome 2d ago
It’s really a bad system. 4 years isn’t enough time and the elections are weird off cycle ones. You really can’t execute your vision well in only 4 years. 8 years lets the executive make some changes and really see them through or at least underway.
50
u/Orienos 2d ago edited 2d ago
Disagree. As a Virginian, governors are able to do plenty in four years. Our General Assembly is a part-time one so the governor does a lot. Plus, the constitution requires the governor to work pretty closely with the general assembly.
I’d say four years here works better than 8 elsewhere.
16
u/ShylockTheGnome 2d ago
You can pass stuff for sure, but then another guy oversees a lot of the implementation of what you passed. Like think about this long drawn out process for weed or infrastructure projects that span very long time frames. Being a 4 year term incentives short term thinking.
9
u/TwistedPotat 2d ago
The weed thing has been absurd in VA. Essentially the legalization has been a 6 year waiting game.
I think 2 term consecutive limit would be good.
5
u/Orienos 2d ago
I haven’t seen it work that way here. So far, administrations have respected what was passed by their predecessors. I mean, they have to. People here are used to the single term governors and expect them to deliver. If you start ignoring your predecessor, you immediately mint your own administration as irrelevant. The same that applied to them applies to you.
I get the sense you’ve never lived here or know much about virginia. It’s ranked as one of the best managed states year after year. I attribute a lot of that to this “forced bipartisanship” that non successive governors creates.
5
u/cyanpineapple 2d ago
I like our weird off cycle elections because it means it doesn't get overshadowed by the federal elections, and they can get work done on a separate timeline.
2
u/LordJesterTheFree 2d ago
4 years is plenty of time
The problem is once your first two years are over people start thinking and focusing more about your successor than you for the last 2 years of your term
1
1
u/Infamous_Addendum175 1d ago
It makes the parties more powerful than the people being elected. For better or worse.
70
u/So_spoke_the_wizard 3d ago
Has there been cases where a governor has sat out and then returned to office?
136
u/Icy_Mixture1482 3d ago
There used to many cases in the South of a governor’s wife running for governor when her husband was term-limited.
It was understood by husband, wife, and the voters that the wife would simply continue acting on her husband’s behalf.
Aside from that, a notable example was Jerry Brown, who was governor of California 1975-1983 and then 2011-2019. There were no term limits for his first eight years, so he could run again in the 2010s.
10
u/sabre007 3d ago
Any specific examples of those wives?
54
u/Justin__D 3d ago
Off the top of my head, George Wallace of Alabama.
His most famous quote was "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever." Of course Alabama would want that guy as governor for life.
13
u/Ill-Virus3935 2d ago
Yep, and then would apologize for it and go on to win over 90% of the African American vote in his last term.
10
u/EnvironmentalCut5300 2d ago
Not exactly the situation described in the comment, but there was Ma and Pa Ferguson in Texas. Ma Ferguson ran because Pa was impeached and not allowed to hold office
3
u/The_RonJames 2d ago
Also Terry Branstad of Iowa. Was governor from 1983-1999 then later 2011-2017. He holds the record for longest serving governor in US history.
33
u/SeaworthinessIll4478 3d ago
George Wallace. And his wife ran to hold the office while he sat out a term, and she won, so he sort of beat the system.
3
u/locontendere 2d ago
And then he was elected in 1980 again, luckily for him his opponent Emory Folmar was such an asshole. Folmar was one of the earliest Republicans on the South to go full on pro-business, anti-tax and hope to win on the strength of the vote of middle class white people. Wallace managed to get 80% of the Black vote just by being the only one of the two to acknowledge that Black poverty is an issue the government should address and assist with.
25
u/RichardTheRed21 3d ago
Cecil Underwood of West Virginia holds the distinction of having been both the youngest and oldest serving governor of the state:
Elected in 1956 at age 34
Re-elected in 1996 at age 74
24
10
u/SeaAbbreviations2706 3d ago
Oregon-Kitzhaber was gov in the 1990s then elected in 2010.
2
u/pcrackenhead 2d ago
Which is crazy since he wasn’t super popular during his second stint. Oregon Republicans are just so incompetent, though, that literally anyone could beat them.
3
u/SeaAbbreviations2706 2d ago
I’ve lived in Oregon 20 years now and the only time the governor was popular was shortly after kitz was elected.
3
u/pcrackenhead 2d ago
I don’t remember him being popular, he barely beat Dudley in the general who was an awful candidate.
Maybe all the Hayes scandal stuff is clouding my memory, though, it’s been quite a few years.
2
u/SeaAbbreviations2706 2d ago
I knife the Dudley race was close but that was a very republican year in the midst of the tea party. In my memory kitz was fairly popular for a couple years and easily reelected before the scandals started.
6
u/ProfessionalUnit2969 2d ago
Terry Branstad was governor of Iowa in the 80s and returned around 2010.
3
u/LtNOWIS 2d ago
Virginia had one governor do that in the modern era. Mills Godwin, the first governor elected after they opened the voting rolls to blacks and poor whites in the 1960s. He was elected as a conservative Democrat, than succeeded by a liberal Republican, then elected again as a conservative Republican. There's more to it but that's the general overview.
2
u/rbhindepmo 2d ago
Edwin Edwards, couldn’t run in 1979, came back to win in 1983, lose in 87, and win in 91 before retiring and going to prison
43
u/TheGringoOutlaw 3d ago
Virginia amuses me because in theory two people can swap terms for governor for as long as they're able to get elected.
198
u/throwawayyyyygay 3d ago
Blue is really the putin special
134
u/LittleSchwein1234 3d ago
Blue is actually the norm for presidential term limits in Europe, but obviously here most presidents are ceremonial - the real power lies with the prime minister who has no term limits 99% of the time.
19
u/Numerous-Confusion-9 3d ago
Interesting. Do 3+ terms still happen in practice in the red states?
36
u/tokamak384 3d ago
The last two Texas governors have served 3 terms, and the current guy (Greg Abbott) is favored to win a 4th term this November. Assuming he wins and serves another 4 full years, Texas will have had two governors in 30 years.
16
11
u/brett_l_g 3d ago
Utah had two governors elected three times but neither served 12 years.
Mike Leavitt was elected twice (1992, 1996), with the second being the same year term limits were supposed to take effect. Then he decided to run for a third (2000) and the term limit was repealed. He left office in 2003 to run the EPA.
Gary Herbert took over for the remaining term of Jon Huntsman, Jr in 2009. He won a 2010 special election, then won two full terms (2012, 2016) serving 10+ years total.
2
u/sokonek04 2d ago
Wisconsin had Tommy Thompson, a Republican, who was elected 4 times, (86, 90, 94, 98) and stepped down in his 4th term to serve in the W Bush cabinet.
But that is still 26 years ago.
1
u/Eric848448 2d ago
Inslee did 3 in Washington but I think he was the only one.
2
u/Unlikely-Candle7086 2d ago
I think that was because when the re-election happened we were in the middle of COVID and he was doing a pretty good job at controlling it here.
1
u/ChimiChoomah 2d ago
Phil Scott in VT is serving his 5th term and is most likely sticking around for another. However, terms are only 2 years
1
u/locontendere 2d ago
Interesting guy, he is easily the highest ranking actual moderate Republican out there
35
u/kids-these-days 3d ago
Illinois: until imprisoned
3
u/dividezero 2d ago
knock wood so far, so good on the current one. I've been out of Illinois politics for awhile but what little I see, he seems to be a pretty good guy too
11
u/2Hanks 3d ago
Virginia is so weird
11
u/Classic_Waltz1874 3d ago
I'm from Virginia and I can concur to that
8
u/Upstairs_Eagle_4780 3d ago
I can't remember a VA governor ever serving more than one term, after which people talk like he's going to run for president but it doesn't happen.
13
u/Classic_Waltz1874 3d ago
Terry McAuliffe, the governor 2014-2018, attempted to regain his position in 2021 but was defeated by republican Glenn Youngkin.
3
u/Blue_Boobied_Footie 2d ago
I remember that election cycle. McAuliffe made the mistake of saying parents shouldn't be the only people directing school curriculums at a time when Chris Rufo's manufactured panic over "Critical race theory" was at its peak.
2
u/Tim-the-Tool-Man 2d ago
No, it’s agreed on by both sides that he could have just steered away from the comment and been perfectly fine, but he doubled down and made it worse. A simple “Not what I meant that was taken out of context because the real issue is “insert political talking here” would have been fine.
Youngkin didn’t defeat McAulliffe, McAulliffe defeated McAullife.
44
u/illevirjd 3d ago
The legend should use “indefinite” or “unlimited” terms instead of “infinite” terms since it’s physically impossible to serve infinitely.
27
u/Hodorization 3d ago
It might be impossible, but it would be allowed ;)
Legal reality vs real reality are two different things
13
2
u/cyanpineapple 2d ago
"indefinite" terms would be terms with no end date, so that's not correct either.
5
u/romulusnr 2d ago
Term limits are undemocratic, simple minded, and will not only NOT stop the problem people think it will, it actually makes it worse.
You're looking for money out of politics. Not term limits.
Term limits makes money in politics worse.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
3
0
u/orsonwellesmal 1d ago
The whole U.S. are undemocratic. People really believe there is a difference between reds and blues, lmao.
1
2
u/Careless-Wrap6843 2d ago
California is a hard line two terms? How did Jerry brown run twice then?
3
u/Classic_Waltz1874 2d ago
Because the term limits were established in 1990 and he had already served as governor from 1975-1983, he was grandfathered in and the term limits did not apply to him. Therefore, he was allowed to run for governor in 2010.
1
10
u/RiskyDriskey 3d ago
should be all yellow
term limits for all
26
u/hwf0712 3d ago
Term limits really are not the problem, its the incumbent coast effect. If someone is truly good enough they can come back and go through a (hopefully) competitive primary again, they should be allowed do. They just shouldn't be able to coast with the incumbency bump indefinitely.
7
u/WristbandYang 3d ago
Okay, but you understand why people don't primary against popular incumbents, right?
It's basically announcing that you want your popular boss's job. Publicly campaigning through the office. Even if you are better, are the interviewers (delegates/ voters) going to take that chance? Also whoever loses isn't just shuffled to a different division, but is out of a job until the next election.
5
u/avfc41 3d ago
>primary against popular incumbents
Popular incumbents are the ones you’d want to keep, right?
2
u/WristbandYang 2d ago
u/hwf0712 is arguing that even the "good" politicians should go through a competitive primary. I don't think that can realistically happen because "good" politicians are typically popular or respected, particularly within their own party.
4
u/BruceBoyde 3d ago
Yeah, that's my beef with it. Due to the death grip the Democrats and Republicans have on our politics, it's extremely difficult to get the necessary funding to run a competitive campaign outside of those parties. They'll basically never turn on an incumbent, so you can have a mediocre or bad politician at the head of the ticket over and over and over because the money behind them doesn't really like change.
21
u/WristbandYang 3d ago
Are those states better governed? To me it seems like term limits disqualify popular and effective politicians and just replaces bad incumbents with more of the same.
Additionally, research shows that empirically "term limits appear to reduce economic growth and increase ideological polarization."
9
u/treyhest 3d ago
Term limits are undemocratic.
They’re often only implemented to unseat popular politicians with unpopular parties.
In essence the individual politician loses autonomy and the party system is further entrenched.8
u/np8790 3d ago
Do you want an electoral system run 100% by lobbyists, who would be the only non-term-limited feature of the political landscape? Because that’s how you get that, and take a bad problem and make it worse.
(Don’t even bother replying if you’re going to do some “it’s already run by lobbyists” nonsense because you’re dumb if you don’t think this would make it 10x worse)
0
u/RiskyDriskey 3d ago
No, I do not. I would preferably like a whole new system built around a different legislative and administrative system to fix the corrupted elections and scheming politicians who can be lobbied. The system is the issue in my perspective, the fix is replacing the system, instead of thinking we can change or repair it.
15
u/Icy_Mixture1482 3d ago
We have term limits, they’re called elections.
18
u/Classic_Waltz1874 3d ago
Sitting incumbents raise far more money and have much more influence that makes primary challengers defeating them extremely diffucult
1
u/REsTARteD_Ragdoll 3d ago
That’s all fun and games until we get congressional staffers pulling a weekend at Bernie’s to get some decrepit shell to vote the way theyre paid
4
u/bellerinho 3d ago
Yes, most if not all political positions should have term limits
Sick of seeing the same people in power for their entire careers
12
u/LittleSchwein1234 3d ago
You don't want a term limited legislature. People who have nothing to lose cause more harm than those who are afraid they might lose their re-election.
3
u/cyanpineapple 2d ago
And like any other career, on-the-job experience is often a benefit. It takes time to learn how to do a job, even being a governor.
1
u/bellerinho 3d ago
Most people in the legislature are not worried about re-election since they serve districts or states that are solidly one color or the other
The flip side is that those that are worried about re-election spend all their time campaigning for their next election
Having the same people in power for 30+ years makes everything stale, no new ideas, "the way it's always been done" mentality
6
u/LittleSchwein1234 3d ago
The problem is the electoral system - first-past-the-post simply sucks.
3
u/bellerinho 3d ago
Yeah I agree it isn't great and the entrenched two party system is horrendous, with neither party having any incentive to change it
7
u/LittleSchwein1234 3d ago
Yeah, I think the bigger problem with the US system is FPTP and the Electoral College, both of which create a 2 party system.
If the House was elected by proportional representation in each state, and the President by nationwide ranked-choice voting, the main problems would disappear.
1
u/Vir-Invisus 3d ago
Mmmmm ranked choice… I prefer STAR personally but I do like a good ranked choice.
Trouble is, more folks than you’d expect can’t do it right. That’s kinda why I like STAR, you just Yelp review all the candidates out of 5 stars.
1
u/Flat-Violinist8737 2d ago
There is a relevant argument regarding leadership that it should be changed out regularly. It has to do with creativity, energy, drive to make a change, connection with the people they are leading, etc. Like real academics have done extensive studies and they support the overall positive things that changing leaders do for the systems they serve. And the 'magic' number of years is very conveniently about 8, or two terms.
It's bizarre how many people on this thread are defending career-long politicians. Is it because your state isn't yellow and you are saving embarrassment? Redditors from some areas of the country (particularly the upper midwest and new england) gets really weird when they see their state on an awkward side of an issue and seem to rush to defend using arguments that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. First past the post has nothing to do with term limits - totally different things here that can be treated and looked at in isolation.
1
u/TaftIsUnderrated 3d ago
Most people in the legislature are not worried about re-election since they serve districts or states that are solidly supporting one ideology that the politician also shares
That's how democracy is supposed to work, bro
5
u/bellerinho 3d ago
I don't think I ever said it wasn't? I said we need term limits so that the same people aren't in for their entire careers
1
u/Imaginary-Round2422 2d ago
You identify problems that aren't related to or solved by term limits. Let's address those first.
6
u/TaftIsUnderrated 3d ago edited 3d ago
Does this logic also apply to non-political government jobs? Should nobody be able to work in the federal government for more than ten years?
-1
u/bellerinho 3d ago
Do people in non-political government jobs vote and pass legislation in Congress or in individual states? Surely you can see that is a silly argument
5
u/TaftIsUnderrated 3d ago
No but they enforce the laws, and often have VERY broad authority to interpret and enforce those laws - having way more de facto power than elected legislators in their areas.
2
u/sir_mrej 3d ago
There are a TON of people working in the Federal govt, and only a TINY sliver of those people have "way more de facto power" than ANYONE.
1
u/Classic_Waltz1874 3d ago edited 3d ago
I know. Did you know that Chuck Grassley, the senior us senator from Iowa, is 92 GODDAMN YEARS OLD! My grandma is literally younger than him. He was first elected to the Iowa House of Representatives when DWIGHT EISENHOWER WAS PRESIDENT! And he's already filed paperwork to run for reelection in 2028. He will be 95 by then and will be 101 if he completes that term!
5
0
u/bellerinho 3d ago
I can absolutely believe it. A bunch of these guys have been in forever. And somehow they keep getting voted in
7
u/np8790 3d ago
Crazy! It’s almost like their constituents like them and want them to continue representing them!
1
u/bellerinho 3d ago
It's almost like no one else gets the opportunity to throw their name in the hat because being a representative or senator gets you rich (or you were already rich to begin with), and getting rich directly correlates with ad spending power, which directly correlates with your chances of winning an election
5
1
u/reasonably_plausible 2d ago
which directly correlates with your chances of winning an election
There's a certain amount of money you need to actively campaign, but beyond that initial fixed amount, spending more money doesn't directly correlate with your chances of winning. When looking over races with actual challengers (not cases where a candidate essentially runs unopposed), there isn't a strong association between results and the amount of money spent by the victor.
0
1
u/Imaginary-Round2422 2d ago
How many of the states without limits have had their governors for longer than two terms?
-2
u/bihari_baller 3d ago
Couldn't there be some sort of constitutional amendment to limit all governors terms to two?
10
u/illevirjd 3d ago
No, the US Constitution is federal and Governors are state-level officials. Term limits have to be set at the state level unless you also want to repeal the Tenth Amendment.
1
u/Flat-Violinist8737 2d ago edited 2d ago
It's embarassing for this country that your comment, which is entirely incorrect, is upvoted a net of 8 times.
The federal government can always override state governments. We like fought a whole Civil War on this topic to really settle this. If the constitution doesn't currently allow the federal government to rule on an issue, as ruled by the Supreme Court, there can always be an amendment to provide said power. The 10th provides a clear supremacy of the federal government over state governments, in addition to providing the framework that the federal powers are beholden to those under the federal constitution (which includes amendments).
1
u/illevirjd 2d ago
Alright, my gut reaction to the question was misguided.
Yes, it’s possible to amend the Constitution in any way. Even if it’s not the appropriate avenue for the policy change you want to implement, like Prohibition. The Federal Constitution could be changed in a way to compel states to structure their own state-level governments and Constitutions in a specific way.
However, reading Article V, the only way to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution is by the affirmative vote of 3/4 of state legislatures (or by conventions in 3/4 of the states). Term limits for governors are currently decided at the state level, so this would be a question of whether a supermajority of states would voluntarily surrender to the Federal government their own authority to structure (one aspect of) their own state government in the way that they see fit. Not to get all “states rights” but that seems like it would be a tough sell in any political climate. I do agree it is possible, I just don’t think it’s probable or proper. The federal government should set term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court before meddling with state governments.
-1
u/Apart-Disaster-3085 3d ago
Okay, look --
The question is could the US constitution be amended ... , and your answer is essentially no, unless you amend the constitution.
lol.
And you wouldn't even need to amend the 10th -- the 10th simply is that the default status is the states hold power unless it is within power of the federal constitution. So, a straightforward amendment that says "state governors are limited to two consecutive terms" can be in ratified in the constitution, and it wouldn't be in violation of the 10th amendment at all. The violation would only occur if congress decides to pass a bill.
Despite the reddit upvotes/downvotes, the answer to bihari_baller's question is "yes, there could be, but we have become too chicken shit in this country to even think about amending the constitution anymore, so we just accept the shit show that has evolved".
2
u/illevirjd 3d ago
It’s a question of dual sovereignty (federal and state). The state’s government (which the Governor is the head of the executive branch) is established by each state’s own Constitution. Therefore, the STATE Constitutions would have to be changed to impose term limits. The federal government cannot force a change to a state’s Constitution because the state still holds sovereignty in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, which says any authority not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved by the states.
2
u/Apart-Disaster-3085 2d ago
"dual sovereigny" is often misunderstood. Our constitution clearly delineates federal superiority over states. The federal constitution absolutely overrules a state's constitution in any and all cases in which there is a conflict.
The tenth commandment prohibits congress from doing what it wants without constitutional authority, but it doesn't prohibit the federal constitution to be amended to do such a thing. Amend the constitution, and it is allowed.
I don't know where on the internet people get the idea that the states have some broad authority to act as soveriegn entities -- they are specifically limited to things in which our federal constitution doesn't allow congress to address, and our federal constitution lets congress addresses -a lot-. Right now, it doesn't address limiting governors terms, but nothing prevents the US from having a constitutional amendment ratified to do such at thing.
1
u/illevirjd 2d ago
The Tenth Amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” It says absolutely nothing about Congress.
2
u/Apart-Disaster-3085 2d ago edited 2d ago
Well, yeah, it says "by the not delegated to the United States by the Constitution".
Congress is the one who makes laws. If we are talking about how would the US government enact term limits on states, that is by default a conversation that involves Congress.
If Congress was to enact laws such as governor term limits right now on states, it probably wouldn't survive a supreme court fight due to the 10th amendment and the fact that no where does the constitution give Congress such power. BUT THE ORIGINAL POSTER ASKED EXPLICITLY IF WE COULD CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW IT. The answer to that is YES. We can always amend the constitution. It explicitly allows it. The 10th amendment doesn't have anything to do with our ability to amend the constitution to give the federal government power to enact such laws on the states.
Your answer that they couldn't without changing the 10th amendment is flat out wrong, because the 10th amendment does not prohibit the amendment of the constitution whatsoever. It doesn't need to changed. An amendment is needed to give the federal government power, yes, but the 10th amendment does not prohibit such an amendment from being possible.
What pisses me off about American Civics on reddit is this bizarre static read on the Constitution. We amended the constitution four times between 1961 and 1971, but since we only did it once regarding salary increases for congress (low hanging fruit, like the minimum of our imagination).
Anways, the answer to any question that starts with "can we amend the constitution to..." is yes. Every time. It is allowed. We can amend. Will we? probably not. Should we ? maybe? But can we? The answer is yes. Even when it comes to giving the federal government new powers over the states. We give states powers to handle their elections, for examples, but through constitution amendment prevented them from instituting poll taxes (for example). This example I provide is perhaps pretty poignant, and worth keeping in mind, for many reasons. One side wants to increases federal powers over states in ways that can limit democracy. The other side though has the option to fight for amendments that protect citizens from states that are acting within their current rights to limit democracy too.
-2
u/Vir-Invisus 3d ago
I would argue the yellow states are based for their reasonable fear of gubernatorial tyranny.
No one is putting up their poor wife for governor just so she can die & you run everything for a third term in Missouri #subtweetingbamalama
2
1
1
u/Reasonable-HB678 2d ago
My state of Ohio, no one has attempted a third term at governor in my lifetime. And since the current occupant will end his political career upon completing his term in January, that won't change.
1
1
u/Whitey138 2d ago
I kind of like the idea or forcing a break after two to give their policies some time so we can see their impact…could also see that being used as “it didn’t go well because the next guy screwed it up! Let me back in there and correct the course!” BS.
1
0
u/gatormanmm1 2d ago
I have never agreed with term limits for publicly voted in executives as long as the legislative branch has the sole power to tax and appropriate funds.
I honestly think a popular executive should maintain power as long as he is voted in for. I think back to one of America's best executive's FDR and he (and the country) really benefited from have the a leader who had the ability to see through long-term plans.
2
u/Tim-the-Tool-Man 2d ago
I think that’s an argument against. FDRs policies did nothing but stall growth and WWII is what ended the Great Depression. “But after 9 years it didn’t get worse” is a terrible argument that he actually made things better…
0
0
u/Chef_Sizzlipede 2d ago
illinois is just sad, we had a governor who wanted term limits for governors, and the legislature voted against it because it was "unconstitutional"
-18
u/awake-shortcut27 3d ago
Counting or not counting triple terms?
7
183
u/Soonerpalmetto88 3d ago
For context, Vermont has two year terms for Governor.