Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cunninghams_right t1_jc40fqp wrote

what we really need is an open primary where the top 3 go to the general election, regardless of party (so you can have more than one Dem, similar to what california does). then ranked-choice with the remaining 3. having primaries be the only election that matters is a flawed way to do things. then, keep synched up to presidential cycle to increase turnout.

I actually do like the term limits. the "institutional knowledge" argument is horse shit.

if you're on the city council and you actually care about the city, your institutional knowledge won't be lost because you will take a job as either staff for a particular elected individual, or you will work some other role in the city government and maintain availability to answer questions and advise council members. Lawrence Rashad Anderson, Scott's Chief of Staff, makes $142k per year. if a councilperson refuses to get paid $142k for the sake of maintaining institutional knowledge, then they never cared about the city in the first place and we don't want them advising anyone.

14

moderndukes t1_jc4d995 wrote

Agreed on RCV. Alaska uses that exact system but with top 4, Nevada adopted top 5 in November.

> if you're on the city council and you actually care about the city, your institutional knowledge won't be lost because you will take a job as either staff for a particular elected individual, or you will work some other role in the city government and maintain availability to answer questions and advise council members

They’ll go straight into lobbying firms and that’s who will hold the power in the city. This happens every time in every state where legislative term limits get enacted. I think executive term limits are good and healthy, but legislative don’t tend to work out well.

4

Cunninghams_right t1_jc4gem4 wrote

if they're that easily bought, then we didn't want them as councilmembers. that's why the "but what about the institutional knowledge" argument does not work.

either

  1. they care about the city, they will take a (well-paid) job that allows them to still assist incoming members. or
  2. they don't care and were just in it to make money, in which case WE WANT THEM GONE.
5

YoYoMoMa t1_jc6sol4 wrote

>if you're on the city council and you actually care about the city, your institutional knowledge won't be lost because you will take a job as either staff for a particular elected individual

Wow this is some of the worst logic I have read in a minute.

−1

Cunninghams_right t1_jc7b3vx wrote

horse shit. the logic is fine. if someone cares about the city, there are plenty of jobs in the city where they can work aside from city council, many of which pay incredibly well. if six-figure jobs are not enough to entice someone to be helpful to the incoming council member, then they don't care about the city.

there are also highly paid consultancy positions that many companies and governments pay in order to get institutional knowledge from people who have left or retired. the institution knowledge argument is the one has no logic.

2