Of Local Elections, Local Leadership...Local Engagement, Part One

'Term limits'. 

This catch-phrase is usually brought up in any coffee shop conversation about City Hall. 

Just as those who are burdened the heaviest by regret are invariably those who aren't currently content, by-and-large people who believe in the need for term limits view the performance of Council negatively. 

Makes sense. After all, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it', right?

Putting aside my belief that it makes no sense in and of itself to penalize good performance (this assumes that re-election imparts a stamp-of-approval on the incumbent and what they've been bringing to office), it's probably best to examine the real problems associated with trying to unseat a standing Councillor. And in the end, these elements are all parts of the whole, 'The Poor Skill-set of The 'Employer' Doing the 'Hiring', The Resident'. 

Take a look at the chart I've provided. (It's by no means 'extensive'; I'd intended to go back at least three decades, but ran into trouble early. As well, there are more than likely mistakes in the figures. Again, I did my best with what I could find.) Anyway, this small collection of data shows that the incumbent rarely loses. In fact, someone new getting in tends to happen more when someone retires. (Oh; the emboldened names are those where a challenger defeated an incumbent)

So why does this happen? 

I'm asking the question because it's germane to an examination of why people have the relationship they do with local governance. Here are some stock answers:

-The incumbent has an unfair advantage, one based on visibility and being able to raise campaign funds.

-It's virtually impossible for a newcomer to stake out ground in mainstream media. 

-It's hard to 'knock out the champ'. 

In a nutshell, these stock answers are usually accompanied by calls for 'term limits'. As if there's such an egregious level of 'unfairness' to the game that it's only right that 'someone else' get a chance at representing a ward.

I have been accused of misusing the word 'conflation'. (Admittedly by those who are saddled greatly with their own afflictions, ones that frankly eliminate them from objective observations of any real saliency...) But within this discussion, I think there's a ton going on. 

-People feel detached and disengaged from the political process in Hamilton

-Despite what the Mayor's Office is broadcasting, there is an underlying element of 'not-optimism' about where we are, where we're going and what we're capable of accomplishing as a city. 

-There's a dearth of authentic leadership. (Don't confuse 'leadership' with 'management'.)

-There are historical re-invention tribulations that we deal with individually and collectively in Hamilton, something I've long referred to as our 'legacy malaise'. 

All of these...and more, there's always more...add up to create a situation where barely 40% of eligible voters do so, and almost two-thirds of these ballots are cast by way of 'name recognition'.

Next up: Getting to the heart of the matter...