4 ms·

All of this may be true, but I'd like to see the public record where legislature took a look at the existing candidates for elected official, didn't like the re

All of this may be true, but I'd like to see the public record where legislature took a look at the existing candidates for elected official, didn't like the results, and decided to raise salaries in order to improve the candidates. My guess is that it didn't happen that way at all. Instead, the legislature voted to increase salaries for itself, and no one bothered to ask questions. Now we have retrospective justifications that it's hard so there were no candidates until salaries were raised, but I just don't see that happening anywhere.

SHOwnsYou 15y ago
Fortunately it doesn't need to explicitly happen for us to still derive benefits as if it did. You're taking everything way too literally also. There is more than just black and white you refuse to see it. No good candidates until salaries were raised... That's not what I said nor what I meant, and I think you're fully aware of that. Obviously that isn't true because small towns with limited or no budgets for elected officials still have people running. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to convince someone to put up with the scrutiny and death threats that come along with being the mayor of a big city for no compensation (Bloomberg is the huge exception).