More of the Same
I don’t totally grasp the argument, made by Dana Goldstein and others, that it would be horribly “undemocratic” for the New York City Council to repeal the city’s term limits that were imposed years back by referendum. I mean, suppose they did it, what could happen next? Well, either Bloomberg would lose to whoever wins the Democratic nomination or else Bloomberg would defeat whoever wins the Democratic nomination. In the first case, the will of the people to deny Bloomberg a third term would not be subverted — Bloomberg wouldn’t get a third term. And in the second case, the will of the people to deny Bloomberg a third term would not be subverted either — Bloomberg would have a renewed direct mandate from the public.
Now that doesn’t change the fact that the timing and manner of Bloomberg’s decision to seek this change seems kind of sleazy. But the time to take that into consideration is during his re-election campaign when you might think it renders him an inferior choice to the main alternative. But the idea of scrapping term limits can and should still be evaluated on its own merits and it’s a good idea.
45 Responses to “More of the Same”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 1st, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Right…either he’s the best choice for the city or he isn’t. Presumably the voters will make that choice. It’s bad for other reasons of course (mostly because those in power tend to do whatever is necessary to keep it, and those aren’t always good choices), but it isn’t undemocratic.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Matt, I really think you need to look at the actual situation in NYC regarding term limits, not just the theory.
In 2005 (the most recent election), 43 New York City Council members ran for reelection. 42 won their races. 42 OF 43! The only one who lost was a guy who had been found guilty of sexual harassment.
I’m fine with letting someone run for mayor as many times as they want because the voters pay enough attention to the mayoral election to oust someone they don’t want. But, due to some combination of structural difficulty and voter apathy, it’s almost impossible to get rid of a City Council member. Maybe there’s another way to fix that problem, but absent another solution, term limits are the best thing we have.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Voters in the last election who cared about term limits and did not take it into account because of the law are having their judgement retroactively obliterated. That’s why it’s sleazy and shouldn’t be done. It calls into question the legitimacy of this past election, not the present one.
Bloomberg can change his mind but voters in 2004 who used the term limit law as a factor can’t change their vote. Which is why ex post facto law changes that benefit sitting elected officials should not be made.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I thought Bloomberg was a Republican.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
This is just uncharacteristically naive of you, Matt. Let’s review, shall we?
1. The voters of NY twice amended the charter of NYC — our constitution — to put in term limits. The Mayor wants to undo that purely by vote of the City Council. He, and 2/3 of the Council, are directly affected by those limits, AND — the real kicker — the proposed change would ONLY affect those currently term-limited. It would not change them permanently. In other words, it is purely a one-time pass for the current incumbents that will be passed solely by the say-so of those incumbents, in the face of prior city-wide voter action saying otherwise.
2. Moreover, if you bother to read the news reports, which I’m sure you haven’t, you’d find that Bloomberg has squelched, for example, potential union opposition by using his position as mayor to grant them lucrative contract renewals. He has used his position as a gazillionaire to dole out some $20 million to various councilmembers’ pet projects. In other words, he is using precisely the levers of incumbent power that term limits were designed to thwart, in the service of bypassing those limits.
3. Finally, your notion that Bloomberg’s re-election would be a pure democratic expression is charming. Do you think his statement that he will spend as much of his billions as it takes bears on that analysis at all? Really?
If after all this you can’t see any reason why this might be deemed somewhat “undemocratic,” then I can’t help you.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
And by the way, I’m not a terribly big fan of term limits in the abstract, and I didn’t vote for them before. But this naked power grab just stinks.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Agree w/ joejoejoe. He should should end his term, lobby for changes over the next Mayor’s term, and then run w/o the advantage of the incumbent.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
“the timing and manner of Bloomberg’s decision to seek this change seems kind of sleazy.”
Sure, but it’s less sleazy than doing it after the election. In my hometown, a mayor who had forced a term limit measure when he was on city council ran for an illegal third term and won. The state had to step in and throw him out of office. If you’re going to pull this stunt, get the term limits removed before the election. It makes everyone’s life easier that way. It may be crass, but the voters won’t mind if they like the guy. Hell, in my town, they voted for a guy who couldn’t legally take office.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:33 pm
That’s exactly right, Matt. In fact, term limits are themselves undemocratic. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; all democracies have provisions that are undemocratic, and for good reasons. But term limits are a way of preventing something from happening even if 51% of the people want it to happen. More here:
http://theenlighteneddespot.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/bloomberg-goes-for-three/
October 1st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I’m surprised you didn’t mention that Bloomberg’s actions violate Rawlsian principles of justice. Bloomberg is certainly not operating within a “veil of ignorance” here. He knows perfectly well that overturning the term limit will advance his own self-interest at the expense of the least well-off.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
One could also argue that though terms limits are undemocratic (a statement with which I agree), they are in some ways less undemocratic than allowing the disproportionate power of the wealthy to distort democratic politics in a way that serves their own personal or class interests. In this case, I agree with Glenn.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
But term limits are a way of preventing something from happening even if 51% of the people want it to happen.
I’m intrigued by the idea that this is “undemocratic.” Let’s see: the people enshrine certain constraints on majority rule in their governing document. These constraints prevent some things from happening, even if 51% of the people want them to happen. This sounds very familiar to me, for some odd reason. Wait, don’t tell me, I’ll get it…
October 1st, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Term limits are a way of preventing something from happening even if 51% of the people want it to happen, and anti-trust law is a way of preventing a company from taking complete control of the market for a product even if its product is the best one out there.
We do this because we need to prevent massive accumulations of power in the hands of one person or organization. Mike Bloomberg has been a very good mayor for New York. But no man is a Messiah. There are many very capable people who would like to be Mayor of New York City. If Bloomberg wants someone to continue his great legacy, he should groom a successor, and spend fifty million bucks electing that person rather than himself.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Glenn has it right. I am against term limits too, but if they are to be rescinded than they should be for the next mayor and city council. It id self serving.
Another point he highlights well is besides the normal ability of a mayor to influence people by his elected power. Bloomberg uses his money to silence critics and pay off supporters.
I worked in the primary elections in 2005 on the Democratic side. I was called and offered 3Xs my salary to go work for the then Republican Bloomberg. Many individuals of influence were simply paid off with useless campaign jobs or donations to their pet projects.
This is not a healthy Democracy.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Glenn is right, and Matt’s analysis here is pretty facile.
Hello, massive advantages of incumbency? That’s why term limits were invented and passed — it’s so hard to get rid of incumbents, even corrupt ones, as they entrench power and can dole out favors.
It’s also a “depends whose ox is gored” issue. While voters of both parties may favor term limits, they may set aside such a view temporarily when their party is in power but rue doing so when their party is out of power.
And so what if term limits are theoretically undemocratic? So is overriding an Act of Congress by claiming the 1st Amendment allows unlimited campaign donations and spending by billionaires.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Go back and substitute “Bush” for “Bloomberg.”
Would you still support this position?
October 1st, 2008 at 5:17 pm
“Go back and substitute “Bush” for “Bloomberg.”
Would you still support this position?”
I oppose term limits in every case but the president. But in this case, I’d love it if Bush could run again. I’m not sure he’d lose as badly as McGovern, but he’d be in solid Goldwater territory. I’ll be satisfied with an Obama win, but it would warm my heart if it were a devastating landslide.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
“Go back and substitute “Bush” for “Bloomberg.”
Would you still support this position?”
Dear God yes. The last poll I saw had Obama beating a hypothetical Bush by 23. Not that Bush could have possibly won his primary this year.
Clinton would have easily won a 3rd term though, and imagine where the national debt might be right now if that were allowed.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I oppose Term Limits in principle, as a horribly undemocratic fix for a legitimate problem (the entrenched nature of incumbents combined with endemic voter apathy). But if they want to overturn them, they should:
1. Overturn them permanently, not one-time-only (which is so sleazy I cant believe it’s seriously being considered).
2. Overturn them by holding a special election, presenting their case to the voters, and — hopefully — succeeding in getting them overturned.
But basically, I dont think term limits help. It replaces one problem with another, and in a system where voters are really so apathetic that they cant even throw out bad politicians, corruption and other bad behavior will rear its ugly head in a million different ways no matter who’s in office or how long they’ve served.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
“Clinton would have easily won a 3rd term though, and imagine where the national debt might be right now if that were allowed.”
Mmmmmm…Clinton. If there weren’t term limits, he’d be running for his fifth term right now. And his chances of winning would be such that Republicans might not even bother running a candidate. I still think the term limit on the presidency is a good thing, but Clinton does may me stop and think about it. But then I think of Reagan, and I feel better about it.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
You’re arguing an abstraction here. The question isn’t whether support for term limits is democratic, it’s whether overturning the results of a referendum for the benefit of an incumbent is democratic. Bloomberg doesn’t want to change the rule for the good of the city. He wants to change the rule because it applies to him.
We have a system of government that follows certain rules. We know when elections are going to be held, who’s eligible to vote in them and who’s eligible to run in them. Any player who can arbitrarily rewrite the rules to his own advantage will ultimately win, regardless of the wishes of the electorate.
Whether you agree with them or not, term limits were enacted because voters saw a danger in an incumbent drawing too much power and privilege to himself and that’s exactly what Bloomberg is trying to do here. Your argument that “the time to take that into consideration is during his re-election campaign” misses the point that he is invoking powers to change the system in a way that none of his rivals possibly could.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
20. fostert: Reagan would have had a 3rd term, but I’m pretty sure the onset of old age and Iran-contra catching up to him would have finished him off. I have a hard time believing he would even want to run a 4th time.
Also, everyone is right, MY is an idiot on this one. A 1-time exception to incumbent rules is total crap.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Sorry, Matt, but this is crap. Voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative in Missouri capping political contributions, and public support remains high for those limits. So now that a Republican legislature repealed Missouri political contribution limits, I suppose that voters must approve of the repeal unless they vote the Republicans out? Of course not.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Ulysses tied himself to the mast for a reason.
Everything Glenn said in comment 5 is correct.
Brooklynmatt, does it change anything in your balancing of entrenchment versus getting rid of good officeholders in assessing the New York City term limits that Bloomberg (and everyone else term limited out in 2009) is free to run again in 2013?
October 1st, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I was going to point out that Yglesias is forgetting his Rawls here. But I see someone made the point above and made it wrong. This is not a veil of ignornace issue. I have no idea whether Bloomberg, from a veil of ignorance, would favor this move, and am not sure what that has to do with whether it is democratic anyway.
The more relevant point is that, as Rawls makes clear, when there are sharp power imbalances it is naive to assume that elections match the will of the people. I remember Rawls makes this point in terms of limiting the wealth of the very richest when they get to the point of warping democracy.
Ironically one place we see Yglesias’ argument made is by Republicans arguing that union votes should be closed door majority votes. My impression is that Yglesias favors the democratic response that the power imbalance in the workplace are too skewed for such procedures to effectively reflect people’s views on the subject.
On the other hand, it is funny to think that a Republican in New York can have such an institutional advantage in a city as democratic as New York. The cases below the presidential level in which term limits seem to make sense are ones in which an incumbent can use party power to guarantee a nomination, and then overwhelming party identification to guarantee election.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:02 pm
The cases below the presidential level in which term limits seem to make sense are ones in which an incumbent can use party power to guarantee a nomination, and then overwhelming party identification to guarantee election.
This still applies in New York at the city council level.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I think term limits make sense (just look at the disaster that is Mayor Daley of Chicago).
October 1st, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Give NYC back to Rudy. He’s the only one who can heal the smoking hole that is Wall Street. He has experience.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:57 am
I don’t totally grasp the argument, made by Dana Goldstein and others, that it would be horribly “undemocratic” for the New York City Council to repeal the city’s term limits that were imposed years back by referendum.
You argue that people who don’t like him can vote for the other party.
But they don’t get the chance to vote for an alternate leader from his own party. Term limits allow those alternatives to develop. So the party isn’t stuck with no-names when he dies.
I think this problem would be partly improved if we have IRV or a similar voting system. His party could run two candidates and the other candidate wouldn’t split his vote. Other candidates from his party wouldn’t be so much in his shadow.
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 am
The mayoral level is one of the positions where term limits make the most sense (another being the presidency). Preventing calcification and entrenchment of mayoral patronage systems is extremely desirable, and the job isn’t so difficult that only one person can possibly perform it.
Term limits for executives and term limits for legislators are really two different policies and the demerits of the latter shouldn’t be conflated with the former.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:52 am
It’s not “undemocratic,” but then, the country isn’t a democracy–it’s a constitutional republic. The whole point of the “constitutional” part of “constitutional republic” is that there are some underlying rules which we don’t allow to be violated by simple majority vote. Glenn above seems to be taking a stab at arguing that repealing term limits in the fashion proposed violates the city’s Charter. If that’s true, no mere popular majority can mke it legitimate.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:12 am
It is never “undemocratic” to allow people to vote for whomever they want. Term limits are, in fact, “undemocratic” on their face. And so long as the Council is acting within the rules of the city’s charter, I see nothing wrong with this.
October 2nd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Term limits are not undemocratic, they are a necessary check to prevent someone from eternally holding power. The fact is, incumbents have a natural advantage, either from powerful political machines, control of state apparatus, or both. If you want to see what happens when there’s no term limits, look at Chicago. Or Venezuela. Or Zimbabwe.
I like Bloomberg and if he runs I might well vote for him again, but the thought gives me the heebie-jeebies.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:12 am
levitraIf you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 11th, 2009 at 4:41 am
Great site. Good info
March 12th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:22 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:16 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:29 am
buy viagra online
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:21 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:09 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!! viagra