The Case for Term Limits in Maplewood Politics

DaveSchmidt said:

Interesting how the intelligence of voters can swing in these discussions, between either making them pillars of Tocquevillian democracy or marking them as dupes who don't know what their lawn signs mean.

I'm pretty sure no one actually made either of those assertions.

Winking avowal of a shakeless faith in the electorate, drawing on recollections that differ from those of others, withdrawn.

reductio ad absurdem

Michael Bloomberg was a staunch proponent of term limits until he decided that he wanted another term.

imonlysleeping said:

Some voters are engaged and informed, others are not. Has always been thus, as you well know. Not sure what your point is? 

To put it another way, I guess my point was that it's often easy to see voters who oppose one's own choices as being un- or misinformed (even if I only imagined it in the TC primary). I don't think it hurts to be reminded of that temptation when confidence in the electorate as promoted in this thread -- and which I subscribe to -- is not always so strong.

ml1 said:

reductio ad absurdem

Heh. It's doubly insulting when it's misspelled.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

reductio ad absurdem

Heh. It's doubly insulting when it's misspelled.

maybe you'd prefer straw man.  I'm certain I spelled that right.

DaveSchmidt said:

imonlysleeping said:

Some voters are engaged and informed, others are not. Has always been thus, as you well know. Not sure what your point is? 

To put it another way, I guess my point was that it's often easy to see voters who oppose one's own choices as being un- or misinformed (even if I only imagined it in the TC primary). I don't think it hurts to be reminded of that temptation when confidence in the electorate as promoted in this thread -- and which I subscribe to -- is not always so strong.

Many of us thought that some voters were misinformed on this particular issue. However, I don't recall anyone insisting we change the process after our candidate ended up losing. 

If you're unhappy with a particular office-holder, the right way to limit his or her term is to find a candidate -- or be a candidate -- and win an election.

tom said:

If you're unhappy with a particular office-holder, the right way to limit his or her term is to find a candidate -- or be a candidate -- and win an election.

Oh sure.  And I suppose you tell people that the way to lose weight is have a proper diet and get regular exercise.

imonlysleeping said:

Many of us thought that some voters were misinformed on this particular issue. However, I don't recall anyone insisting we change the process after our candidate ended up losing. 

That is true. My post was a comment not on a need to change the system, but on the shifting ways people, including me, sometimes view the intelligence of voters. If it's a strwa man, or irrelevant, or self-evident, by all means move on.

DaveSchmidt said:

imonlysleeping said:

Many of us thought that some voters were misinformed on this particular issue. However, I don't recall anyone insisting we change the process after our candidate ended up losing. 

That is true. My post was a comment not on a need to change the system, but on the shifting ways people, including me, sometimes view the intelligence of voters. If it's a strwa man, or irrelevant, or self-evident, by all means move on.

I don't recall anyone saying that voters in the primary were stupid.  Many of them were indeed misled.  I talked to people who told me things that I knew were incorrect.  But just because politicians or activists sometimes lie to voters, there's no need to propose term limits. 

Maybe more of an issue is how candidates are selected and endorsed by their parties.  

For example, Mayor DeLuca is one of the leaders of the local Democratic Party and he is officially endorsed and chosen as a Democratic candidate every time he's up for re-election.  Others who are not chosen by the Democratic machine either have to drop out or run independently.

The deck is stacked against those who are not insiders in the Democratic Party.

DaveSchmidt said:

imonlysleeping said:

Many of us thought that some voters were misinformed on this particular issue. However, I don't recall anyone insisting we change the process after our candidate ended up losing. 

That is true. My post was a comment not on a need to change the system, but on the shifting ways people, including me, sometimes view the intelligence of voters. If it's a strwa man, or irrelevant, or self-evident, by all means move on.

But this thread is about term limits, so again, I'm failing to understand your point. Regardless of whether we think voters are smart or dumb, right or wrong, informed or uninformed, we trust the democratic process. Even when we don't like the outcome. 

yahooyahoo said:

Maybe more of an issue is how candidates are selected and endorsed by their parties.  

For example, Mayor DeLuca is one of the leaders of the local Democratic Party and he is officially endorsed and chosen as a Democratic candidate every time he's up for re-election.  Others who are not chosen by the Democratic machine either have to drop out or run independently.

The deck is stacked against those who are not insiders in the Democratic Party.

tell that to Greg Lembrich (or Jerry Ryan)

imonlysleeping said:

But this thread is about term limits, so again, I'm failing to understand your point. Regardless of whether we think voters are smart or dumb, right or wrong, informed or uninformed, we trust the democratic process. Even when we don't like the outcome. 

Consider it thread drift, then. The argument against term limits gives voters, I think, their due. Huzzah! They do not, however, always get their due, in my opinion -- an example being the TC primary. I think it's fair to say my estimation of the electorate's overall acumen in that case was higher than what some others judged it to be. 

I apologize if that still leaves you scratching your head. It's the best, I'm afraid, I can do.

DaveSchmidt said:

imonlysleeping said:

But this thread is about term limits, so again, I'm failing to understand your point. Regardless of whether we think voters are smart or dumb, right or wrong, informed or uninformed, we trust the democratic process. Even when we don't like the outcome. 

Consider it thread drift, then. The argument against term limits gives voters, I think, their due. Huzzah! They do not, however, always get their due, in my opinion -- an example being the TC primary. I think it's fair to say my estimation of the electorate's overall acumen in that case was higher than what some others judged it to be. 

I apologize if that still leaves you scratching your head. It's the best I can do.

You're positing a contradiction where none exists. It's possible--reasonable, even--to believe in the electoral process without believing that the electorate always gets it right. 

it's also possible to believe that voters are generally intelligent, and believe that in isolated instances they've been misled.  I really would need to see the quotes where people here called primary voters stupid.  I don't think that happened.  I do think a lot of people were led to believe things that weren't true.  And that's not something term limits would address.

ml1 said:

yahooyahoo said:

Maybe more of an issue is how candidates are selected and endorsed by their parties.  

For example, Mayor DeLuca is one of the leaders of the local Democratic Party and he is officially endorsed and chosen as a Democratic candidate every time he's up for re-election.  Others who are not chosen by the Democratic machine either have to drop out or run independently.

The deck is stacked against those who are not insiders in the Democratic Party.

tell that to Greg Lembrich (or Jerry Ryan)

When there is an open seat on the TC, that is, when no incumbent is running for re-election, the Maplewood Democratic Committee openly solicits candidates, conducts interviews, and votes an endorsement. That is how Vic DeLuca first got on the TC. That is also the way a newcomer becomes an "insider". Furthermore by winning a Primary as an outsider one may become an insider. The current Chair of the MDC, Ian Grodman, started out that way and Greg Lembrich, having run as an outsider and won, will now become an insider.

The process is far more fluid and open than some seem to believe.  

You really want a radical suggestion to boost diversity and turnover? Run municipal government posts like jury duty, rather than through elections. If your name comes up, you have to serve a term.

Not sure if this would actually work, or even if I'd support this, but as long as we're throwing out ideas...

people want to get new blood in local government?  I'd suggest not calling the current TC corrupt and shady.  I can't believe that the past two years of personal attacks on Ryan and DeLuca have made more people want to run for local office.  or even the attacks on the MVA and Planning Board, which probably isn't making more people want to volunteer.

ml1 said:

it's also possible to believe that voters are generally intelligent, and believe that in isolated instances they've been misled.  I really would need to see the quotes where people here called primary voters stupid.  I don't think that happened.  I do think a lot of people were led to believe things that weren't true.  And that's not something term limits would address.

Nobody said stupid. Misled, unaware, uninformed, confused about what it meant to keep the Village a village -- all implying that, for one reason or another, those voters weren't up to the task. I never got the impression that these were deemed isolated instances, but maybe I inferred too much.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

it's also possible to believe that voters are generally intelligent, and believe that in isolated instances they've been misled.  I really would need to see the quotes where people here called primary voters stupid.  I don't think that happened.  I do think a lot of people were led to believe things that weren't true.  And that's not something term limits would address.

Nobody said stupid. Misled, unaware, uninformed, confused about what it meant to keep the Village a village -- all implying that, for one reason or another, those voters weren't up to the task. I never got the impression that these were deemed isolated instances, but maybe I inferred too much.

You're looking at this a very strange way. If people were intentionally misled about the Post House--which they clearly, objectively were in certain instances--they are victims, not mental deficients. The only  person suggesting that voters aren't "up to the task" is the original poster. 

A lot of intelligent people don't vote intelligently, or more specifically, in a manner where they are well versed on the stance of candidates and on the range of issues. There have been many studies about this. When I interned for my congressman way back in the last century, he would rattle off a list of reasons why people voted for him, most having nothing to do with his stance on issues...it made me wonder why I wrote position papers for him. And as we also know, a lot of voters simply don't vote. Still neither is a reason for term limits. It isn't as simple as the winner being the person who gets the most votes...in reality, the winner is the person (and their campaign) who get the most voters to turn out.

LOST said:

Michael Bloomberg was a staunch proponent of term limits until he decided that he wanted another term.

Bloomberg stated after his first term he could see why 8 years was not enough to get a lot everything done given the way government works. 

As pointed out above, Obama (and same could be said for Clinton or Reagan in the past ) would all probably easily win a third term.  And all three would say that we have much larger problems in government than term limits.  

At the national level, the primary system is a joke.  Members of congress joke that they spend the first 6 months of a term actually working and the rest of the time campaigning.  

At a local level, where the positions are part time with minimal or no pay, term limits are not needed.   As pointed out numerous times -- we have elections and the power to vote for others assuming someone wants the job.  

imonlysleeping said:

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

it's also possible to believe that voters are generally intelligent, and believe that in isolated instances they've been misled.  I really would need to see the quotes where people here called primary voters stupid.  I don't think that happened.  I do think a lot of people were led to believe things that weren't true.  And that's not something term limits would address.

Nobody said stupid. Misled, unaware, uninformed, confused about what it meant to keep the Village a village -- all implying that, for one reason or another, those voters weren't up to the task. I never got the impression that these were deemed isolated instances, but maybe I inferred too much.

You're looking at this a very strange way. If people were intentionally misled about the Post House--which they clearly, objectively were in certain instances--they are victims, not mental deficients. The only  person suggesting that voters aren't "up to the task" is the original poster. 

Who ironically was a full participant in the ad hoc organizations that repeatedly and continually provided misleading information to the public.

And after being resoundingly defeated  in his quest to prevent the new development he is now calling for term limits for the very bodies that voted against him - the Township Commitee and Planning Board.  How can anyone take him seriously ?

imonlysleeping said:

You're looking at this a very strange way.

If that's your conclusion, I won't argue. (Which was the real hiccup in ml1's "reductio ad absurdum": By definition, it requires an argument, and I wasn't arguing.) As I said, I did my best to explain a comment; clearly, I was not up to the task. 

Fluid as in $$$.

Greg spent $10,000 to get elected in a local race.  Does that sound logical to you?

LOST said:

ml1 said:

yahooyahoo said:

Maybe more of an issue is how candidates are selected and endorsed by their parties.  

For example, Mayor DeLuca is one of the leaders of the local Democratic Party and he is officially endorsed and chosen as a Democratic candidate every time he's up for re-election.  Others who are not chosen by the Democratic machine either have to drop out or run independently.

The deck is stacked against those who are not insiders in the Democratic Party.

tell that to Greg Lembrich (or Jerry Ryan)

When there is an open seat on the TC, that is, when no incumbent is running for re-election, the Maplewood Democratic Committee openly solicits candidates, conducts interviews, and votes an endorsement. That is how Vic DeLuca first got on the TC. That is also the way a newcomer becomes an "insider". Furthermore by winning a Primary as an outsider one may become an insider. The current Chair of the MDC, Ian Grodman, started out that way and Greg Lembrich, having run as an outsider and won, will now become an insider.

The process is far more fluid and open than some seem to believe.  

There were 5 candidates whose names were submitted to the Democratic Committee during the last election.   Every one of them had far more experience with town government than Greg (who had none).  Every one of them had been more involved in the local community.  Perhaps if Greg had been more involved with local organizations , with volunteering, or had worked for the people of Maplewood in any capacity he may have had a wider circle of supporters and may have been able spend less and win anyway.  

yahooyahoo said:

Fluid as in $$$.

Greg spent $10,000 to get elected in a local race.  Does that sound logical to you?

LOST said:

ml1 said:

yahooyahoo said:

Maybe more of an issue is how candidates are selected and endorsed by their parties.  

For example, Mayor DeLuca is one of the leaders of the local Democratic Party and he is officially endorsed and chosen as a Democratic candidate every time he's up for re-election.  Others who are not chosen by the Democratic machine either have to drop out or run independently.

The deck is stacked against those who are not insiders in the Democratic Party.

tell that to Greg Lembrich (or Jerry Ryan)

When there is an open seat on the TC, that is, when no incumbent is running for re-election, the Maplewood Democratic Committee openly solicits candidates, conducts interviews, and votes an endorsement. That is how Vic DeLuca first got on the TC. That is also the way a newcomer becomes an "insider". Furthermore by winning a Primary as an outsider one may become an insider. The current Chair of the MDC, Ian Grodman, started out that way and Greg Lembrich, having run as an outsider and won, will now become an insider.

The process is far more fluid and open than some seem to believe.  

Do enough time volunteering for the right causes and organizations and get involved with Town government and the Wizard of Oz will let you behind the curtain!