Councilor Yoon's last gasp: Mayoral term limits

What was it Churchill said about democracy?

Did I say that we should change forms of government? Term limits is not switching to a new form of government.

Putting a term limit puts a clear barrier cutting out good politicians, too. If I think X is doing a good job, why should I be deprived of my right to vote for him again? Even with all the advantages of incumbency, term limits still smacks of elitism, that the people have to be protected from themselves, because they know not what they do.

I view things by weighing the pros and cons. What I see, the pros are bad politicians are forced out and a constant stream of fresh eyes will come in. The cons are some good ones will also get chopped. If more good than harm (more bad politicians are out than good ones plus new blood) are done by having term limits, then I support term limits. Additionally, limits to incumbent advantages, I currently see will generate less good versus term limits even though one can argue that it is better on fairness for a good politician and voter.

I think you and I have bit of a difference in seeing how malleable is human nature.

It's just a matter of hard work that not too many people are willing to do.

The matter of hard work you ask requires a large group of motivated people pushing for reforms. My understanding of human nature is, people are lazy and people are impatient. You can motivate yourself to do fight, a small group of people is possible too. A large group operate on extremes, motivated enough to sweep out parties with great zeal or fail to reach critical mass which lead to making some noise and fade to acceptance.

If you believe that entrenched politicians will not carry out the will of the people, then why do you believe that getting term limits passed will actually end up being successful? There are more than enough examples of the people's will being thwarted by the legislature even though a majority of the people voted to enact certain things via referendum.

Do not forget that part of my reasoning is term limits is more effective than trying to take out incumbent advantages. For addressing your argument, term limits are much more likely to be passed as it have the precedence and clearer cut than complex reforms aim at removing incumbent powers. Many times, removing incumbent powers means removing ability for a good politician to take action too in the time given.

So, the only way to get it done is by working, one seat at a time - one office at a time, one man or woman at a time - via the only damn outcome they have yet to circumvent, and which the courts frown mightily upon tampering with: actual election to office.

As I said above, sustained effort of very large groups, I have doubt of ability to keep that effort alive. I see a small group or a single man accumulating such capital as much more likely as they can keep their efforts alive longer.

Aside, I also note this, in the case of term-limits for mayors, that is much easier to succeed in implementing and much more likely to see its benefits. The other path of replacing one representative at a time slowly means getting them in will takes many many years, such benefits, which I see is less than a clear cut reform will mean it will Boston will benefit much less by the reform and the benefits accumlated over time.

You say "A democracy of only the interested is no democracy". Considering for most of our country's history, there were people who WERE interested, but because of sex or race or whatever, they had no say. That's not democracy. People who have the right, and choose not to - that's a different story.

Now they may not be voting for whatever reason - a protest against the losers on the ballot, because American Idol was on, because they never found out where their polling place was - but that doesn't mean they're not represented. They have the option and don't use it. IMHO, that means I don't have to care what they think.

I saw David Plouffe's book event in Harvard Square last night. He said that managing the Obama campaign, against Hillary Clinton, he knew they could only win if they gave a large number of those people a reason to get off their couches and go vote. You saw what happened there. The fact that an energizing, motivating campaign is a glaring exception rather than a common occurence sucks, but I don't think the answer is dragging everyone to vote. I frankly don't know what is.