This seems like a long one. You know when you go to vote and hope that it will make a difference and you find that you just keep putting the same types of people in office. It's disappointing when this happens because their elected term turns out to be a very long one due to all of the problems a city may have. Mount Vernon New York is too small a town to go through what it does and is quite old enough to know the difference between many things. The problem here is we tend to put czar's or dictators in office who may have other political ambitions and are using the town to create a reputation for their political career. You may say well what is the problem? Despite the fact that a town may become bankrupt and without the necessary resources to keep it functioning, it still exists and appears like any other one in the area, but truthfully much damage has resulted due to the amount of years an elected official has been allowed to stay in office. Is it possible to change the law for towns that have under a certain amount of people and are not very large area wise so that in the event there is a leader that is not able to govern the town the way it should be, then another election can be held within three years to put another elected official in? It's not a bad idea and I only say it because when you have people or ones that hold office and they stay for eight years or so they can really ruin a town. If the state were to compare what a town had regarding resources before such elected official entered office and then compare it to what it has now along with the agenda of accomplishment, the people along with the state will see if they have the right person in office. This needs to be done every two years or so and if it is found that such an elected official has other aspirations and is just using a town to establish themselves, then it may be time for that person to move on after three years. This would reduce the time a person stays in office and so that a city or town is not a risk in any way due to a misguided government. In small towns whereby you have the same structure as a larger one in terms of voting, we neglect the larger picture because a smaller town may have fewer resources and once you get someone in office who does not have ones best interest, things get depleted rather quickly. In small towns you need to reduce this amount of time to prevent bankruptcy and possible take over due to unsatisfactory government. Four years may not seem like a long time but when the goals are not directed on what they need to be then that time is basically wasted, due to the outcome of the situations that occur. I vote that smaller towns or cities have elections every three years to prevent corrupt infrastructure from ruining them.
Blogs are written by