Keep the Two-Year Term

(The following represents the opinion of a minority of the CRIMSON.)

President Johnson is correct when he says there is "little magic in the number two." But what was a compromise in 1787 has worked effectively in the past and seems well-suited for the complicated problems of governing the United States in the future. A two-year term in the House is more desirable than any of the proposed varieties of a four-year term, and should be retained.

The popular myth that Congressmen spend most of their time campaigning for re-election has no basis in fact. Most members of the House need not electioneer full-time in order to retain their seats; in six of the seven elections held from 1950 through 1962, fewer than 100 seats were won by a narrow margin (less than 55 per cent of the vote). Pressures for reelection have been exaggerated, often as an excuse for a Congressman's failure to do other things. Constituent service is not a burden since it its handled, in the offices of all but a few Congressmen, by professional staffs. The need to perform tasks for constituents would not be diminished by a four-year term; despite a six-year term, Senatorial staffs also handle a huge volume of such requests.

The best thing about biennial Congressional elections is that the House stays responsive to changes in popular opinion on many subjects. It is not unreasonable to ask that the nation have an opportunity to reexamine some decisions every two years, and Congressional elections are the closest thing we have to a national referendum. This year, for example, the people will have some-albeit limited-opportunity to make themselves heard on the Vietnam war through Congressional elections. It is absurd to suggest that the floods of form letters which make up the bulk of Congressional mail adequately represent public opinion.

Varieties of the four-year term which would have the entire House elected between Presidential elections or half the House elected every two years are totally unacceptable. The former might have the President and Congress permanently at odds; the latter would create two kinds of Congressional seats, one with a smaller electorate.

The only advantage of having Congressmen run for four-year terms with the President might be that this would polarize opinion for or against his program. But instead of strengthening Congress, which President Johnson claims is his goal, this would weaken it and leave only a third of the Senate running in each off-year election to test the people's sentiments. And there is no reason to believe that a four-year term would make Congress more responsive to a need for social change; indeed it would only freeze in office for a longer period what might again be an unresponsive Congress. The two-year term is certainly not responsible for putting racists in Congress or for creating a slow-moving body.

Even if Congress were to approve a President's program more quickly if elected for four years, this is not its only job. Overseeing the legislative and administrative processes involves more than saying "yes" or "no" to specific proposals. Discussion of Presidential programs can be better accomplished if Congress is responsive in its composition to subtle changes in public opinion.

There is a danger, too, that if Congress were elected for four years, members would ignore very significant social phenomena. Some Southern Congressmen, for example, if now serving a four-year term, might be less concerned about the attitudes of their new Negro voting-constituents-in some districts, they could continue to reject Negro voters and ride into office on the President's coattails. A few Southern politicians have begun to make the transitions necessary to please an integrated electorate: they know Negroes will be voting in future elections.

President Johnson argues that "in the states, in private business...the wisdom of longer terms for senior officials has come steadily to be recognized. State after State has adopted a four-year gubernatorial term." It is perhaps too obvious to suggest the irrelevance of this argument. A four-year gubernatorial term is indeed a progressive idea; but almost all these states retain two-year terms for their legislators for equally valid reasons. It is also impossible to follow the President's contention that better men will be attracted into government by a four-year term; on the contrary, many districts may begin electing political hacks who let the national ticket do all the talking for them.

The Congressman, as President Johnson urges, should be relieved of the financial burden of biennial elections and of the likelihood that he will be in debt to a few contributors. The President should submit proposals immediately to stimulate more small contributions to candidates and to make meaningful Federal regulations governing campaign spending. His attack on the two-year term, however, is misdirected. Let's keep it.