Term limits?!? Puhlease...

Over the past two days I've been triggered by this issue's 'discussion' several times.

My reaction has varied from a rolling-of-the-eyes to near-apoplexy.

I think the argument's logic goes something like this: 'When a person's been in office too long, they lose their edge, they become more interested in being re-elected than actually getting the job done...and besides; trying to turf an incumbent becomes this enormous battle, because of the hassles associated with inertia... And besides; fresh blood, new ideas are always going to make things better.'

OK.

Let's take a look at this from several angles, shall we?

1) If you've spent any time in the business world...you know, where the 'bottom-line' is paramount, where performance is really all that matters (in most situations, under most circumstances)...then you're familiar with the idea of 'performance reviews'. So that you reward the achievers...and don't reward the bottom-feeders. In that world, if you continue to excel...you continue to be employed. The notion of someone only being able to 'serve' in a job for a set period of time...you know, as in 'term limits'...is preposterous.

2) As noted in this post, there's no criteria for a candidate's qualifications. Potential Councillors come from many backgrounds, brandishing myriad forms of experiences, having emerged from seemingly endless arenas where they've shone. All this notwithstanding, because so many are untested in the local politics world, they go in entirely green. Which brings up the point 'Who brings them along?' Can you think of another aspect of modern life where so much is riding on someone whose abilities are untested, whose presumed performance is based on a hunch, how a voter 'feels' about them? Can't say I'd want to have invasive surgery under these circumstances.

3) If, for the sake of argument, you've got a 'less-than-stellar' Councillor repeatedly getting re-elected...then doncha think the 'problem' lies with who's repeatedly putting him or her back in office each time? Not 'the system'? I've railed on this subject elsewhere on numerous occasions. The notion of 'mandatory voting' seems to lull some people into an intellectual stupor; the problem is that if you don't have a reasonable level of discernment, if the voters' decisions are not in fact 'informed' ones, if their opinions are not in fact 'qualified ones'...then all you get is more doofus decisions being made, more entrenched silliness being manifested in the voting process. So tied into what I've just proposed regarding 'who's to blame for constantly re-electing boobs' is what I've been presenting as a vastly increased 'relationship of engagement' between residents and their Councillors. (These posts can be found with the label/tag 'Civic Engagement'.) If you had a more intense collaboration between the two dancers, then what you'd witness would be less deadwood being voted in when they clearly should be thrown on the fire. As for the great performers? The ones who make the entire 'business' shine? They might be in there for life. And...? And there's something inherently wrong with this?

Look; we don't have a 'big politics' machine at the local level the way you might find in the States. So I refuse to put much stock in this idea that it's impossible for a rookie to oust an incumbent. And frankly; if a newcomer doesn't have the goods to be able to accomplish a usurping...then they don't deserve my vote from the get-go. I'm looking for presumed capability, inventiveness...and resolve. Like they've long said in boxing: 'You have to be able to knock out the champ.'

And if you can't? Go home.