[arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal

[Michael Sinatra]

On 03/25/2014 09:15, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 04:05:47PM +0000, Azinger, Marla wrote:
>>
>> I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive
>> stride, burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with
>> fresh able minds.  I also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for
>> people to re-integrate as a non-AC person and regroup.  Leaving
>> anyone on a committee for more than 6 years opens the door to
>> stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking.
> 
> So, why make a rule about this instead of trusting the voting members
> (and the people sitting) to get it right?
> 
> That is, I agree with everything you say, but I don't understand why
> the solution to that is to make an absolute rule that can never be
> violated in exceptional cases.  What problem are you trying to solve?

This is the problem with term limits: They're inherently
anti-democratic.  They (further) limit the range of people for whom the
voting members can support.  Now, one may argue (as many political
philosophers have in the past) that too much democracy is a bad thing,
but grafting term limits onto an electoral process rarely counteracts
the ill effects of "too much democracy."  In most cases where term
limits have been imposed (e.g. California, where I live), it has not
reduced the influence of special interests, it has not deterred "career
politicians," whether competent or not, and it has not reduced polarization.

Part of the issue is that term limits don't distinguish between those
who have become stagnant and those who continue to be valuable contributors.

Term limits do sometimes make sense in cases where elections can't be
trusted or for very high offices (e.g. heads of state).  But I don't see
the need for the AC.  I believe that the AC members are competent and
self-aware enough to know when it's time to leave.  I also believe that
informed voters have a similar understanding regarding the performance
of the AC.

michael