Have you tried talking to your elected officials?

The huge problem with term limits is that if a supe serves two terms, once he or she is re-elected for a second term, that supe is not accountable at all to the voters and can do whatever the hell he or she wants with no penalty that voters can inflict on the person. Fifty percent is a big % of time for a politician to not be accountable to the voters.

The other big prob is that with each election, the cost to run increases so that the filter that restricts those without access to big money increases. Thus the only ones who are in position to win either are either part of a powerful machine or very very rich or a whore for very very rich interests.

Term limits is idiotic. It sells well because most ppl don't do any thinking beyond the simplistic, "defeat the bastards!" or something along the lines.

With TL, the politician is more tied to being a rep of private interests than the ppl of the City. Why? The first reason is what I said above: costs a fortune to run and thus one has to sell themselves to have the assets to run a competitive race (or be very rich).

The second reason is that the politician knows he or she will soon be out of office so the politician is lining up his future (a great-paying job of some sort) almost from the time he or she gets elected. That becomes the pol's most important considerations AND NOT the future of the City.

Fact of the matter is that term limits is something thought of and pushed by rightwing, monied interests and ppl, in general, have bought into it because they haven't thought much about how it plays out.

Just as Mondale got the shit kicked out of him in 1984.

There is no downtown unconspiracy here, any sane person isn't going to waste their time and energy on this, the stakes are so low that no one is going to put months of their lives into trying to unseat these two bone heads.

District elections (DE) are a great idea. To go back to city wide elections would be the stupidest thing San Francisco could do (which is why it won't happen).

With DE, the voters of a district have much more power to remove a supe and thus the supe has to serve that district much more so than if the supe was elected city wide.

In the Richmond District, Eric Mar did the bidding of the late rightwing Republican billionaire Donald Fisher by helping Fisher get 10 acres of a grass field converted to a plastic, toxic dead turf - a field that is no longer part of the GG Park ecosystem.

If Eric Mar was a city-wide supe, the ppl of the Richmond would have no chance of removing him. Now they can because it's possible to communicate with the ppl of a district - and not possible to communicate with the whole City (unless one is extremely rich or a powerful corp).

It's fortunate that Eric Mar hasn't won his second term yet, for then he would be unaccountable - just like with city-wide elections, for he would be termed out of office and it wouldn't matter what the ppl did. He may pay a price for selling out GG Park and the Richmond District in pushing for the removal of 10 acres of the GG Park ecosystem.

The real crime in what he and the other 9 supes (only Sup. Olague went against the Fisher-Newsom-Ginsberg axis) was that they laughed at the GG Park Master Plan by approving a plan that was so much a violation of that GGP MP that it was almost worthy of a Steven Colbert piece.

Only those who want to take the power away from the ppl would be in favor of a return to city-wide elections (unless one didn't know this was the case - but it is).