The Sept. 18 editorial, “Without benefit of a ballot box,” highlighted more incumbent officeholders having never got a good enough general election test to validate them or the system. This is and ought to be of concern to voters, as voters.
A straightforward fix is to revise the scheme that provides for political appointments, such that a board of 24 random voters evaluate and use approval voting to select the individual for the balance of the term.
The “phrase substantial advantage of incumbency” is put to use. I think it explains every part of the story, re-election as ideal, as end, the default position. It’s as anti-democratic as is anti-challenger, and it’s distracting career ratification overriding vital candidate selection.
Substantial advantage of incumbency can make many an election a non-event.
A way has to be found to pair incumbents against themselves in elections, to gain open seats and a more sophisticated method of term limitation or merely term interruption.
Our current era now asks holders of political capital to spend it on oft-exploited voters, on service so admirable that the incumbency advantage is forfeited by annoyance, via key policy votes, the over-represented under-checked political powers incumbents usually get comfortable with.
Larry Allred
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
