HERE IS a question for all the Democrats supporting CACR 11, the constitutional amendment extending the governor's term in office from two to four years: How did you like years three and four of the Benson administration?

Trick question. Republican Craig Benson was governor for only two years. What would have been years three and four of the Benson administration were actually years one and two of the Lynch administration. That's because New Hampshire has two-year terms for governor.

Why would Democrats want to make the governor less responsive to the people?

Supporters say that having a four-year term would let the governor focus more on governing and less on politicking. But politicking means going before the voters and winning their approval for another term. That is a good thing. We expect all legislators, executive councilors and our members of Congress to do that every two years. That is enough time to get things done but not enough to royally mess things up In a small state like New Hampshire, without the gargantuan bureaucracies that other states have, there is no reason the governor should be given two extra years to mismanage the executive branch before being held accountable by the people.

According to the majority of the House Executive Departments and Administration Committee, we should have four-year terms for governor because "New Hampshire is one of the only two states that has a two-year term for governor. The other is Vermont."

But Vermont and New Hampshire are very different from most other states. They are small, compact states in which a two-year term for governor makes sense. It does not make sense in California, but it does here.

New Hampshire's two-year terms for governor have served the state well. There is no good reason to double them to four years. All that would do is make the governor less accountable to the people.