BREZNICK | Cancel the Midterms? No, Make Elections as Frequent as Possible

In the past few days there’s been a lot of talk about doing away with the midterm elections. Of course, this topic has only sprung up as it has become increasingly clear, though not certain, that the GOP will win a majority in the Senate tonight and increase its majority in the House. Just as the 2000 presidential election set off the calls for an end to the electoral college, we see here again the Left trying to muck with the Constitution whenever things are going their way.

Those who want to do away with midterm elections argue that House Reps are only concerned today with re-election and don’t do any governing. The second criticism is that the usual wave of victory for the party opposite of the President during the midterms creates inscrutable gridlock in Washington. As such, there is a dearth of governing.

Where those clamoring for an end to midterms fault is in their assumption that we need a more pro-active government busily churning out reams of legislation.

“They’re not doing anything in Washington!” they whine. “Nothing gets passed!” they lament. “Government needs to do something!” they cry.

These erroneous beliefs have allowed government to grow in its power—and thus in its out-of-control spending—at the expense of the power of the citizenry. Wishing for a do-something government means wishing for a more powerful government, and where there is give, there is take. True conservatives should rather vie for a small government with limited powers.

Governing is not a profession—there is no need for a professional class of legislators and executives. It was never intended in the founding of this country for a congressional position to become a career. It was a 2, 4, 6 year gig, and then it was up.

Instead of cancelling the midterms and transferring that much more power to the supposed do-gooders in Washington, I would like—if anything—to see elections become more frequent. Increasing pressure on elected officials increases their responsiveness to the voters. Why have Republicans of late, in general, become more beholden to principal? They very well know getting voted out of office is a real possibility. Just look at what happened to Eric Cantor a few months ago. Cancelling midterms would reduce the frequency of elections and the frequency by which voters can re-shape their government.

The basic assumption I’m making here is that gridlock is good, because a government that is doing nothing is better than a government that is messing everything up. The fewer onerous regulations the better. The fewer grand pieces of legislation the better. The fewer career legislators the better.

If you disagree, let me know.