Reply With QuoteToo much power in one person's hands, I think.Originally posted by Pauldo
How about no elected board members and just a non political town manager.
Without the primary, we wouldn't have gotten Mohan.Originally posted by atotaltotalfan2001
That's an interesting idea. I wonder how much elected officials would get done, though, since they'd be constantly running for re-election.
Then again, I guess they do that anyway.
I think it would also be interesting to make local elections nonpartisan -- strip away the GOP, Dem and other political party machines. That way we could also get rid of primaries!
Too much power in one person's hands, I think.Originally posted by Pauldo
How about no elected board members and just a non political town manager.
We've all heard it said before, "We already have term limits: we call them 'elections'."
Term limits may sound good in the heat of frustration. The downside is that they are too indiscriminate: they prevent us from keeping someone who may be doing a really excellent job, although I have to admit that is a great rarity. Having been employed for many years by an organization that imposed term limits in lieu of making informed judgements and decisions, I know how welcome they are when you are trying to get rid of someone and how unwelcome they are when you want to keep a person.
As voters, we have the responsibility to elect the best people we can in the first place, re-elect them if we are pleased, and replace them with others if we don't like their performance. Unfortunately, most of us keep blindly pulling the levers on the incumbants, no matter what their performance has been. (If you don't buy that, just look at the record: incumbants have a very high rate of re-election at every level.) What we need more of is an informed electorate who have the courage of their convictions on election day. Reward the good guys with another term (no limit) and fill the other spots with new people. When someone has had their chance to do a job and they show they can't or won't do it to our satisfaction, give someone else a chance. If they are doing the job well, let them keep doing it as long as they want to and as long as the performance level remains satisfactory.
WELL SAID!
The public gets what they want when they vote or in reality, what they don't want when they don't vote!
Amherst elections always illustrate the "blind sheep vote".Originally posted by Usually Right
WELL SAID!
The public gets what they want when they vote or in reality, what they don't want when they don't vote!
"Always"? We replaced a supervisor, didn't we? We're giving someone else a chance, and he can be replaced as well--after we give him a fair chance.Originally posted by Pauldo
Amherst elections always illustrate the "blind sheep vote".
The voters in Amherst are gullible and believe the fabricated lies of all candidates during the election process. In addition, the "blue hair vote" always will vote party line and not the candidate. This is how Kindel keeps his seat on the board.Originally posted by Joe Buff
"Always"? We replaced a supervisor, didn't we? We're giving someone else a chance, and he can be replaced as well--after we give him a fair chance.
Hey! Who said we're perfect? Wait 'til next time!
And, as a part of the "blue hair vote" who keeps in touch with a lot of "blue hairs", "white hairs", and "no hairs" (I'm one of those!), I can tell you that your sweeping generality is 'way off base. "Some," "Many," or even "Most" might be accurate. Not "always" or "all."
You should always avoid sweeping generalities, just as I have learned never to say "never." And that's my opinion until someone gives me a new one.
I am worried about the "brush cut vote" that always seems to re-elect Kindel.Originally posted by Joe Buff
Hey! Who said we're perfect? Wait 'til next time!
And, as a part of the "blue hair vote" who keeps in touch with a lot of "blue hairs", "white hairs", and "no hairs" (I'm one of those!), I can tell you that your sweeping generality is 'way off base. "Some," "Many," or even "Most" might be accurate. Not "always" or "all."
You should always avoid sweeping generalities, just as I have learned never to say "never." And that's my opinion until someone gives me a new one.
Aha! Now we may be on to something!Originally posted by Pauldo
I am worried about the "brush cut vote" that always seems to re-elect Kindel.
Did you know that sheep are really dumb animals?
Sorry Mikey, baby Mikey.
Anyone know who this is?
You keep posting stuff like this. Not only to me, but, to everyone.Originally posted by Usually Right
Did you know that sheep are really dumb animals?
Sorry Mikey, baby Mikey.
I can only guess that you and your supporters believe you exhibit great intellect and that this type of blog is an example of your high degree of education.
Mikey, baby Mikey,
Actually the post was to tell what I think of herd mentality!
][/QUOTE]Originally posted by Usually RightOriginally posted by Usually Right
Mikey, baby Mikey,
Actually the post was to tell what I think of herd mentality!
Did you know that sheep are really dumb animals?
Sorry Mikey, baby Mikey. ][/QUOTE]
How does any reader draw that conclusion from saying sheep are dumb?
And speaking of herd mentality now that you have raised the issue. Any naturalist will tell you that the herd mentality isn't dumb it is actually a rather good survival strategy.
Only you and your faithful entourage would think a single sheep running around by itself was smart.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions