One of the big New York city specific issues in the newspapers is Mayor Bloomberg's bid to get re-elected to a third term as New York mayor. Putting aside what I think, I wonder if people have considered a sort of modified term limit structure, allowing candidates to continue running but against higher thresholds? For example, why shouldn't Bloomberg have to get 55% of the vote this time to stay in office? That way, really popular incumbents can stay in power in tough times, but only by virtue of a very difficult to secure super majority.
EDIT: I found a letter to the editor on point.
10/24/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I'm not sure I want whichever 'best among losers,' who comes out of the scrum of people who get the 46% total that keeps Bloomberg from being reelected, to be mayor. I'm even more dubious about the increasing-10%-each-time threshold in the link. Even if it's only a two-candidate race, do we really want a challenger to win office after the incumbent has had two terms, by winning only 30% of the vote? Even Alan Keyes won that much in his 2004 Illinois Senate race, and most people consider him to have gotten beaten like a ... drum.
I know, but you could just have a run-off fairly easily if the incumbent fails at the threshold. I realize that this means the best loser wins, but on the other hand, that's the case with term limits too.
raffi,
No, I think term limits create a different situation, because then the other possible contestants know for certain that the incumbent can't contest. If I were considering running for office, I'd feel more encouraged by term limits than superduper majority requirement for incumbents. For example, if I know I will appeal to a very similar set of majority voters as the incumbent, whereas my likely opponents probably will pick up most of the marginalized nutters, then term limits give me a great shot at winning, whereas superduper majority voting won't.
Post a Comment