This post is great, as it demonstrates yet another imperfection of the term limits law. It's amazing to consider the ways term limits has perverted our City's democracy:

- As illustrated in this post, current officeholders like Annette Robinson, Dov Hikind and Herman Farrell now have an array of open City seats to choose from, thereby depriving virtually all newcomers a chance to serve in elective office. As everyone knows, current officeholders have what most newcomers sorely lack: campaign funds, name recognition and institutional and organizational support;

- The same is true for former officeholders like Noach Dear, Tracy Boyland and Julia Harrison although they may be slightly weaker competition than those currently in office;

- Mike Bloomberg is considered by some to have been an effective Mayor, and his poll numbers tend to be very good. If he were able to run for re-election, some think he would win handily. So how is it good for democracy for the public to be deprived of a chance to vote for someone who may have been effective? Even if Bloomberg wasn't effective, term limits still robs the public of exercising full control over a fundamental right - to vote.

As to Annette Robinson, I wonder how she will answer questions about her legacy (if she has one). I would ask her how years in office benefitted the community she served. Sorry to say, but for some elected officials, especially those serving poor, historically marginalized neighborhoods, the answer would be confined to having acquired funding for a few community organizations.

It may not matter much anyway.

There are about 65,000 active, registered Democrats in the 36th Council District. In the 2001 Democratic Primary for this District, less than 13,000 people voted. In the 2005 Dem Primary, it was around 7,000.

We don't need term limits as much as we need an active electorate. 

Rock, although you add your thoughts on the topic, this is not a newsflash, but rather old news, that I broke.

I reported that Ms. Robinson, as well as seven other former members of Council, might be seeking their old jobs in 2009, back in August: http://www.r8ny.com/blog/politiko/city_council_2010_return_of_the_old_bloods.html

The list then also included Mike Abel, Julia Harrison, Karen Koslowitz, Tom Ognibene, Martin Milave Dilan, Steven DiBrienza and Tracy Boyland. I later did two more posts adding John Sabini and, if he lost for judge, Noach Dear.

There was also an article in the New York Sun, I believe, about this in late August or September that cited "a political blog called Room 8" (or something like that) as a source. The piece went into detail about how this was not the point of term limits and that one of the groups that lobbied for the limits will reform to block them if any of these people run again.

In the cases you mention, the returnees will have to contest an open seat. It may not be an election that produces new blood. But at least it will be a real election. That's the goal.

If Robinson is really that bad, perhaps people will vote for someone else. The problem isn't that she can run for Council again, it's that she can serve until death or indictment in the Assembly.

Rock wrote: "I want to believe that the main reason the voters enacted term limits, was because they hated the stagnation (amongst many other negatives too)that comes from having electeds in one posiiton for too long."

I disagree. What happened with term limits is what often happens in the political business - one side drastically outspends the other. Ron Lauder, the most public proponent of term limits, spent significantly more to advance term limits than the paltry sum put forth by term limit opponents. On an issue such as this, where the public is naturally inclined to support ANYTHING that restricts politicians, term limit opponents would have to outspend their adversaries by at least a 2-to-1 margin to have a fighting chance (the Vallone led Council spent 250K or so I think). But my understanding is that Lauder outspent term limit opponents by a 4-to-1 margin. Anyone have the precise numbers?

Rock wrote: "I also believe that voters recognize the big disadvantage(s) that insurgents face when challenging long term incumbents. Thus, all in all, voters have tried to even up the playing field a bit."

I think the recently NYC campaign finance program has had more to do with leveling the playing field than term limits. At least in NYC, an insurgent can raise 20K in eligible contributions and get 100K or so in taxpayer money and, while that doesn't guarantee victory, can at least make local races interesting. Just my humble opinion.

Rock wrote: You are entitled to your position on the issue and I respect that; however, I don't see you advocating to repeal term limits on the US presidency; why?

I don't think term limits (at least in its current form) solves the problems newcomers face when running for elective office. As to the Presidency, well, the results speak for themselves. The last few White Houses have been run by a Bush or a Clinton, and the next one may be no different. So go ahead, get rid of term limits at the Presidential level, because it has done little to prevent modern American dynasties...

In 2008, we will have elections for state legislature, without term limits. In 2009, we will have elections for a variety of city offices, some with term limited incumbents and some without.

Compare the elections for open seats to those without open seats. Which would you call democracy?

The 2008 State and 2009 City elections are completely two animals, and the differences go far beyond term limits. I would argue, though, that if the State adopted the City's campaign finance program, the differences at the polls would be dramatic.

Now, I'm not arguing that term limits doesn't accomplish certain objectives. Yes, it creates open seats. My argument, however, is that term limits gives the appearance of democracy and doesn't level the playing field as much as one might think.

Talk of term limits makes things personal. Discussions tend to revolve around the removal of people who, term limits proponents argue, will otherwise remain in office until death or indictment.

In my humble view, the problem with such discussions is that they obscure an important fact; that this is not merely about people, but the allocation of a scarce resource - power.

Term limits creates open seats. But if the seats are then filled by the same special interests time after time, what has really been accomplished? Now, this is more true of legislative, rather than executive, positions. But it affects even the executive level - I mean, really, Bloomberg is a complete anomaly who benefited from Mark Green's implosion back in 2001.

But in 2009, the mayoralty will return to the special intersts. All of the most frequently named mayoral candidates are affiliated with the same entitites who exercise vast control over the levels of power.

And the other offices are no different. The Public Advocate and Comptroller's offices will be filled by current officeholders. And how many of the 36 or so open Council seats will go to people unaffiliated with some part of the City's power structure?

To me, that's not democracy.

Recycled pigs at the trough. Musical chairs. My friend Joe Addabbo is only one example. Look what Citizens Union said of them:

http://joeaddabboagenda.blogspot.com/2007/11/councilman-joe-addabbo-was-caught-red.html

It is tiresome to hear so many people rely on a mechanism to change leadership.  The only way to enact change is to get out there and work for it.

If Annette Robinson wins another race as a Councilwoman, who should we blame for it?  Who is the alternative?  Where are they?

If people do not get off of the asses and vote, then they have no one to blame but themselves.  How about using this column to draft some qualified candidates, or one, to challenge her?

Until then, I'm with the winner, Annette Robinson, who will win with a grand total of 5000 votes.

People voted for term limits because for all intents and purposes, people are lazy.  And, some people ran two well-funded CAMPAIGNS for term limits. 

Getting rid of incumbents is not easy.  The fact of the matter is, if you go member by member, I don't see a vast difference between the previous incumbents and their successors.  It is the same council, with more of a sense of the expedient with BS.  We get more bannings and proclamations of nothing because the current members are seeking press.

If people wanted change, I think a strong case can be made that term limits didn't bring it.  I would actually make an argument that we have taken steps backward.

Let me explain to you how I see this playing out, and you can tell me if I have a profound misunderstanding...the person with the most votes win.  The incumbents have an advantage because people give them money to run campaigns because they can do things for them.  Insurgents have a harder time because they cannot give favors, therefore, receive no money.  The only people that vote are the ones that benefit directly or indirectly from the incumbents good will, or pork.  The insurgents are never in the paper as much, nor can they afford to put out a message.  Therefore, the incumbent always wins, unless the press they generate is ultimately negative.  I understand how it works.  I just don't think that term limits changed anything.

Have the same people been getting paid off? Yes.  Are the same people benefitting from the incumbent? Yes.  Are the same term limit loving folks getting screwed every day? Yes.  so what has changed? A council person represents over 100,000 people and they win with 5000 votes.   Until you change that dynamic, you will have the same problem. 

In fact, more people complain about what councilmembers don't do than those who cheer what they do because the rate is the same - about 5 out of every 100 people know what a councilperson does and cares.  The rest sit back and complain.  Term limits has changed the players, but it is the same game.

I know what is going on.