I remember an American History teacher explaining that the most amazing thing about the new American government was that when we went from Washington to Adams nothing changed for the American citizen. Certainly that has not always held true but certainly I agree with you - thinking about the government is one of the last things I want on my mind.

Washington is often compared to Cincinnatus because he had the opportunity to hold onto power, but chose not to. Supposedly (Legend? History?) some men from his army told him to become a king or offered to make him one, and he refused.

I would say proper transitions of power is part of good government. Your phrasing makes it sound like governance doesn't need to be good as long as it transitions properly.

Improper transitions of power cause bad governance.

I guess that in that context, if we reduce the role of government in as many ways as possible then whether a Good or Bad governance would have less impact to us? And in doing so a proper transitions of power is more important?

A bad transition of power usually (almost always?) results in an increase of the role of government. Bad transitions of power requires the new government to assert its power in order to legitimize itself. In the worst scenarios that means jailing/disappearing the opposition/journalists/activists/etc.

Thanks. Make sense.

That works right until you have a government that does absolutely nothing and the public vote in someone who promises to smash up the system. Someone like... Donald Trump.