OK. I'll bite. (As I'm an incorrigible jouster...)

Term Limits NowApr 14, 2012 12:59 PM

Here's another reason why we need term limits. Everything is about self preservation and being popular so you can be reelected. With term limits, councilors would be more inclined to make decisions based on what makes the most sense, rather than what is likely to hold them in high regard with their base or constituents. Also, self-glorification and other grandstand tactics wouldn't be useful.

Term Limits Now

1. Better Voters NowApr 15, 2012 03:13 AM

   Here's another reason why we need better voters. Little registers with most voters, so the simplest triggers register a Pavlovian response of approval, leading to a candidate's eventual reelection. With better voters, residents would be more inclined to make observations based on what makes the most sense, rather than what is likely to make them superficially happier. Also, self-glorification and other grandstand tactics on the parts of our politicians wouldn't be useful.
   
   Better Voters Now

Yes, I'm against term limits. I explained all that in this recent Spec article. They're a lazy-ass way for lazy-ass people to effect control on a situation they can't be 'arsed' to properly address.

And hard on the heels of me making the above comment, my old pal Sorce chimed in with one. Which I'm going to deconstruct:

SorceApr 15, 2012 07:19 AM

If we had better voters, we would not need term limits. The problem is and has always been, how to get people sufficiently engaged so not only do they make the time, but they have the ability to follow complex issues. Term Limits is required, given that tea and cookies and town halls won't do it. And there is that small matter of "reality" and how much people can devote to this stuff. Some have jobs, family, children, lives .... Term Limits is not my preference. Good engagement is my preference. But terms limits in Hamilton IS necessary. It is interesting that Term Limits is now being talked about again...and early in the game.
Sorce

Reply

Und zo...

If we had better voters, we would not need term limits. 

Agreed. (Maybe I should stop here...?)

The problem is and has always been, how to get people sufficiently engaged so not only do they make the time, but they have the ability to follow complex issues. 

You're right. And this is why I've always maintained...for as long as I've been dragging my soapbox around...that this is something you attain when you've effected a lifestyle change. A complete paradigm shift of mindset.  The way we view ourselves in our own governance, in our wards, in our communities, our neighbourhoods...our streets. It's as complicated a notion as a much better degree of personal health&fitness, or of personal finance: you can't mandate it, guilt doesn't work...you have to 'seduce' people into seeing the light...and embracing it. 

Term Limits is required, given that tea and cookies and town halls won't do it. 

Sorry to be blunt, but I cry BULLSHIT!

First off, as I expressed elsewhere,invoking term limits is as poor a display of responsible behaviour as could possibly be seen on the Council side. (It reminds me of removing all the food from the house if you have an eating disorder.) Naturally, being the guy behind Town Halls Hamilton, I resent the framing of the second part of the sentence, especially the fact that the last bit needs to be qualified. It should read: "...and thus far, given the lack of concerted effort in producing and cultivating movement across the city, town halls as as they've been done haven't proven to be as effective as they have the potential to be when done right."

And there is that small matter of "reality" and how much people can devote to this stuff. Some have jobs, family, children, lives

Now we get into some contentious waters, but I'm never one to shy away from contention, in fact, I loves me some contention. 

People make room for what they consider to be important. 

If most people in Hamilton...'the 90%'...feel that all they 'owe' the local governance process is a vote every four years...and I have to remind everyone that only 40% vote, and almost two-thirds of these by 'name-recognition'...then we're fuckled. 

We have become a society of time-wasters. 

No time to look after our health, no time to be fiscally responsible, yadda, yadda, yadda. 

So please, if we're going to talk about 'reality', let's be honest in all regards. 

 .... Term Limits is not my preference. Good engagement is my preference. 

Once again, I'm glad to hear we're in agreement. (Even though 'term limits' requires a plural reference.)

But terms limits in Hamilton IS necessary. It is interesting that Term Limits is now being talked about again...and early in the game.

Yeah. They're talked about by people who don't have the fortitude (endurance?) to recognize that the flaw in the system isn't with apparent competency on the parts of multi-term councillors. It's with the people doing the hiring.  And the thought of having to take the high road and work that challenge has them turning to a much easier solution. (I feel compelled to add that many of these people are also prone to bitching and whining in general about politics, not really offering up solutions, just this old standby one...that frankly, will never get enacted.)

M Adrian Brassington