Term limits suggest voters can’t be trusted
If we want fresh ideas and new leadership, we can cast our ballots for those things
This week, Toronto city councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon announced in a press conference and an op-ed in the Star that she would not be seeking a third term representing the constituents of her east-end ward.
When she first ran in 2010, she promised to only serve two terms. She is keeping that promise.
Good for her. If, as she wrote, she thinks the upcoming election is a time for “new ideas and new leadership” to replace people like her, then stepping down to make way for fresh blood is an obvious move — a final service to constituents for whom she never thought she’d have more than eight years of energy and ideas to offer.
What’s less obvious is why she thinks a similar injection of novelty ought to be forced onto voters across the city, no matter their preference. For that was another key part of the message she delivered this week, a call for term limits.
McMahon’s suggested term limits would force every councillor to observe the same time limit she voluntarily put on her own service.
I mean, it is obvious enough why the idea of throwing a bunch of city councillors out of office is appealing, not just to McMahon, but to a lot of people.
Look at someone like Giorgio Mammoliti, who since 1995 has approached his responsibilities as a municipal elected official with all the solemnity, sincerity and dignity of a professional wrestling heel. He even adopted the costume of the WWE at one point by removing his shirt for the cameras in the council chamber. Earlier this month, he responded to a Toronto Star request for comment by tweeting a public statement saying, among other things, “bite me Mammo style.”
Many of us may well nod our heads at the idea that 23 years of continuous service is more than enough from him.
And many of us may well not miss other councillors who are less visible, and risible, than Mammo. For there are more than a few longserving mediocrities doing little more than occupying space on the council floor.
Sure, we may think, if Frank Di Giorgio were replaced by a potted fern, would anyone really notice? And while such a plant would certainly not deliver such forceful and lengthy non-sequitur-filled speeches as frequently as Anthony Perruzza, would we be any less enlightened as a result?
There’s a vantage point, I’m saying, from which forcing council’s dead weight to move on seems attractive.
But then there is the whole concept of representative democracy to consider. Because the problem, such as we’re identifying the puzzling ongoing incumbency of some elect- ed officials as a problem, is that people keep electing them. Voters are choosing their representatives. In some cases, choosing them again and again and again and again. Are they not entitled to do so?
At a certain point, you have to deduce that they like those representatives. Or at least prefer them to the alternatives.
In fact, the idea of term limits comes up specifically because voters seem to like the representation they have. They seem likely to elect them again. This preference is seen as a problem to be solved — and the proposed solution is to forbid them the option we assume they prefer.
I may be a condescending jerk in assessing the wisdom of some of my fellow voters and the performance of their councillors, but even for a condescending jerk like me, trying to restrict people’s rights to elect their preferred candidate is a paternalistic step too far.
On principle, I cannot see how arbitrarily limiting the choices available to voters enhances democracy.
Besides, you could just as easily point to long-serving councillors who remain engaged and very effective — more so than a newbie could expect to be. Pam McConnell, who recently died in office after more than 20 years serving the same ward, was an accomplished antipoverty advocate under John Tory specifically because of her long experience. Denzil Minnan-Wong, after 23 years in office, is one of the most effective conservatives on council — a fact that frustrates those of us who disagree with him no end.
Lots of councillors seem to take a while to hit their stride. Paul Ainslie seemed to find his voice near the end of his second term, as Ana Bailao has now. Joe Cressy, a quick study, has emerged as a very strong councillor toward the end of his first term.
That’s because the city government is a complicated thing, and it often takes city councillors almost a full term just to really figure out how things work. After two terms, the good ones know the city organization and routine, they know their files, they better know their constituents, they have enough experience to learn from their mistakes and frustrations — and to avoid being cowed by career civil servants who are subject-area experts and know the bureaucracy inside and out.
That’s not an argument for their re-election if their constituents decide they’d like someone with different ideas, politics or manners. But that they have become good enough at the job to do it well is certainly not an argument that it’s time force them to go, either.
There’s another, separate question here, that to her credit McMahon also raises, about whether voters really do want to send some of these clowns back into centre ring again and again. In the last two elections in a row, Mammoliti has been elected with less than half of the votes against a divided opposition. Di Giorgio won with less than 30 per cent of the vote in both 2010 and 2014. Ranked ballots would at least clarify voter preferences. City council could adopt them, and chose recently not to. To their shame.
But ranked ballots, like more accessible voting hours and some other proposed electoral reforms, enhance democracy specifically because they make it easier for voters to indicate their preferences and express their will, and ensure they’re more able to get the option they prefer. Term limits set out to do the exact opposite, limiting the options available to voters, forbidding them from selecting the option they may prefer.
In some cases, like McMahon’s, candidates who feel they’ve given all they have to give will take themselves off the ballot. It’s a genuine public service for them to do so. But in cases where they do not, if we voters want fresh ideas and new leadership, we can vote for those things. And if we don’t, then for better and for worse, we get the representation we deserve. Edward Keenan writes on city issues ekeenan@thestar.ca. Follow: @thekeenanwire