sllewgh t1_ispm034 wrote on October 17, 2022 at 7:27 PM

Vote no on question K. Not because our politicians are great, not because bad people support it, but because it reduces voter choice and doesn't solve any problems.

Limiting terms might get Stokes and other do-nothing name recognition politicians out of office, but it will also limit the terms of people who do a good job representing their constituents and/or have a wealth of experience. Why shouldn't I be allowed to reelect someone I like for real reasons if I want to? Further, this will do nothing whatsoever to improve the quality of candidates that will replace the term limited ones. The developers and grifters funding the current asshole you want out will never run out of replacement assholes to fund. Real change requires a sustained political fight, and it still will with term limits.

Only a very small portion of voters participate in the primaries, where elections are decided in this one party town. Stokes won his primary by receiving just over 8k votes. If you want to get the dead weight out of office, do it by utilizing voter choice, not limiting it.

UlisesLima9 OP t1_isqaq6x wrote on October 17, 2022 at 10:13 PM

>Limiting terms might get Stokes and other do-nothing name recognition politicians out of office, but it will also limit the terms of people who do a good job representing their constituents and/or have a wealth of experience. Why shouldn't I be allowed to reelect someone I like for real reasons if I want to? Further, this will do nothing whatsoever to improve the quality of candidates that will replace the term limited ones. The developers and grifters funding the current asshole you want out will never run out of replacement assholes to fund. Real change requires a sustained political fight, and it still will with term limits.

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. This was the hardest one for me to wrap my head around cause I can see some merits on both sides. It's never sat right with me the way politicians feel entitled to hold on to power indefinitely. But I take all of your points.

sllewgh t1_isqf91w wrote on October 17, 2022 at 10:48 PM

Agreed that there's merits both ways and it's not a clear answer. I was initially a "soft no" because I see it as a false solution to the real problem you describe, and moved to "firm no" when I began thinking of it as more undemocratic than the alternative. It wouldn't be the worst thing to pass, though, and I think it has a good chance based on general pessimism towards city government alone.

wbruce098 t1_isvphby wrote on October 19, 2022 at 1:15 AM

This has long been my stance on term limits. It sounds good at first, but these limits really only serve those who benefit from a rotating cadre of inexperienced folks in office. This generally benefits those who can afford lobbyists or can fund their own candidates with special interest agendas (usually corporate).

I can’t think of many good reasons term limits support and can actually inhibit the democratic process; if we want an incompetent asshole out of office, we need to do a grassroots movement to get them voted out and ensure someone better is elected. I just don’t see a particularly strong benefit to such a rule.

Edit: it’s not a hill I’ll die on, and our world won’t end. I just see it as generally a negative outcome for regular folks and those, as you’ve said, with the experience to really competently do their job. Competent governance benefits the regular guy but can disadvantage corporations and that’s a good thing.