Voting for Your Representative

[Wilbur]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=262&articleid=20090907_11_A1_DanSul696312

The Tulsa World had an interesting article in today's newspaper (Sept 7).

40% of Tulsans will not be allowed to vote for their City Council representative because there is no republican/democrat running in their district, shutting them out of primary voting.  And, since this is a primary vote and there is no republican/democrat running, the primary vote will determine the City Council seat.

Is that fair?  If no one from the 'other' party is running, is there a reason they can't open up the voting to all parties, just for that district, so they have a say in their representation? 

That sounds like an easy court win, to me.

[waterboy]

Isn't it pointless? Unless the candidate gets -0- votes in the un-opposed primary or general he is in fact the winner. The real battle was fought during the registration process. If one side or the other has a tremendous advantage in registrations, then the other side doesn't want to waste money and reputation. Short sighted but practical.

Even though it results in a small clique at precinct meetings deciding leadership for an entire district, isn't that what the district deserves?

[Wilbur]

Maybe I didn't explain this well...

For example, if two or more democrats are running in a council district and no republicans are running, only those registered as democrat voters will determine who represents the entire district.  If there are no republicans running, why don't the republicans get to vote for one of the democrats since this single, primary vote will determine representation?

[MDepr2007]

Not enough people actually go to vote just for a city councilor. If this election didn't include the Mayors race we would be talking about what an extra 200 to 300 hundred more voters (if that many).

[MichaelBates]

There's no court case here. If a single Democrat had been willing to file in Districts 2, 5, 7, and 8, or a single Republican in District 1, you'd have had a general election in those districts. All it would take is someone willing to plunk down a $50 deposit. (If you are the only candidate of your party to file, you get that deposit back, because you won the primary.)

There are a couple of different ways to address the problem.

The simplest is for civic minded people to put their names on the ballot to ensure a general election in every district.

Another proposed solution is to turn the primary into a general election if all the candidates are of a single party. That idea was one discussed by the Citizens' Commission on City Government.

My preferred solution is something they do in Minneapolis. I call it multi-partisan elections with instant runoff voting. All candidates appear on the same ballot. Every registered voter gets to vote. Each candidate chooses the label he runs under. If you wanted to run as a Republican or a Democrat or as a neighborhood advocate or under the pro-development label, you could. (Minneapolis applies a three-word limit to descriptions. Britain requires political organizations to register their label, and then the organizations determine which candidates are entitled to use that label on the ballot.)

On election day, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. If your favorite candidate doesn't have enough votes to win, your vote is applied to help your second favorite, and on down the list until some candidate has a majority of the ballots. It's like a series of runoff elections but you only have to go to the polls once.

The solution fixes several things broken in our current system:

(1) Every voter would be able to participate in choosing his representative.

(2) The winner would be the preference of a majority of the voters. No worries about someone out of sorts with the majority of voters winning with a small plurality because voters of a majority perspective are split between several candidates.

(3) Candidates would have more liberty to run under the political banner of their choosing. Non-partisan elections would force every candidate to wear a generic label.

(4) Political parties could still nominate a candidate to represent the party, but the burden would be on the party, as a private political organization, to conduct a nominating process and then to enforce it.

This is how it works in Britain. For example, the Conservative Party has a nominating committee in each parliamentary constituency to screen and interview candidates. The local party membership then chooses which candidate will be the official Conservative nominee. A candidate that failed to get the party's nomination could go ahead and run if he wished (e.g. as an "independent conservative"), but it would mean burning a bridge with the party -- not likely to get the official nomination in a future election.

(Our current system gives special ballot status to the two national political parties, and the state pays for their nominating process, but at a cost: The parties have no control over who gets to participate in the nominating process.)

[Conan71]

Unfortunately Michael, with some candidates now raising $50K plus for an $18K/year part time job, it takes "civic-minded" out of the equation for most people.  I'd like to believe that someone like Scott Grizzle can beat two other well-financed, well-connected, and recognizable names, but it's remote it will happen.  I applaud his choice to throw his hat in the ring, but I personally don't see the point in jumping into a council  election so long as there are candidates being financed by unions and a majority of contributors who live out of the district.  The whole idea for council districts was for a councilor to serve the interests of their district, not those of one across town.  Sorry for the cynicism, but I think it's caught on with others as well who would otherwise be willing to do "civic duty" if it weren't for: a) how visibly contentious the council has become and b) the entry fee to city politics has gotten too high.

[Wrinkle]

Just had the thought that even if only one primary has candidates, the general election maybe should serve as confirmation. IOW, that primary winner would still need a majority of votes in the general, even if no one is opposed. And, we could add "NONE OF THE ABOVE" to the ballot.

Not likely, however.

But, getting instant runoff elections would be BIG plus for us, even if it means also having multi-partisan candidates.

[MichaelBates]

Conan, even if a candidate from the minority party in a district did nothing but file for the seat, it would force a general election and would give all voters in the district the opportunity to ratify or reject the winner of the majority party primary.

It is possible to win a city council election against massive amounts of money, but it requires a much earlier start than Scott had and a pre-existing base of support. If I were running for city council in District 8 in 2011, I'd start getting involved in South Tulsa Citizens Coalition, making contacts with homeowners' association leaders, attending the monthly Republican club meetings, and volunteering on local and legislative campaigns. I'd also take one of American Majority's seminars on running a local campaign. The class will teach you the nuts and bolts; the volunteering and circulating will let people get to know you, feel comfortable with you, so they'll be willing (hopefully) to give you money and volunteer for you when you decide to run.

You can run a credible city council race on a few thousand dollars, and that's not as hard to raise as you might think, but you do have to be willing to ask friends, family, and anyone who might have heard of you to contribute. By credible, I mean enough money for pushcards, yard signs, and a couple of mailers to a targeted list of likely voters. With a little more money, you can afford to do a voter identification survey (who's for you, who's for the other guy, who's persuadable) and reminder calls to your voters on election day. The rest of it is door-to-door campaigning. If you can, start early enough to hit every likely voting household in the district at least twice.

My first race for council in 1998 was chock full of first-timer mistakes. Anna Falling and I raised and spent the same amount of money ($1,700 in the primary), but in 1996 she had been a paid staffer for the Oklahoma Republican State House committee, helping candidates in several districts. She knew about the free and low-cost resources available to candidates, and she knew how to target her efforts to the voters that mattered.

[RecycleMichael]

You can run a credible city council race on a few thousand dollars, and that's not as hard to raise as you might think, but you do have to be willing to ask friends, family, and anyone who might have heard of you to contribute. By credible, I mean enough money for pushcards, yard signs, and a couple of mailers to a targeted list of likely voters. With a little more money, you can afford to do a voter identification survey (who's for you, who's for the other guy, who's persuadable) and reminder calls to your voters on election day.

I think you need money for a consultant and I am on the record as being willing to offer discounts. 

On a more serious note, money raised and spent does matter. Running a credible campaign and losing is still losing. The most money spent almost always wins elections.

[Red Arrow]

(4) Political parties could still nominate a candidate to represent the party, but the burden would be on the party, as a private political organization, to conduct a nominating process and then to enforce it.

Isn't this how we got to primary elections?  Government funded to take away the rich guy's advantage.

[Conan71]

Conan, even if a candidate from the minority party in a district did nothing but file for the seat, it would force a general election and would give all voters in the district the opportunity to ratify or reject the winner of the majority party primary.

It is possible to win a city council election against massive amounts of money, but it requires a much earlier start than Scott had and a pre-existing base of support. If I were running for city council in District 8 in 2011, I'd start getting involved in South Tulsa Citizens Coalition, making contacts with homeowners' association leaders, attending the monthly Republican club meetings, and volunteering on local and legislative campaigns. I'd also take one of American Majority's seminars on running a local campaign. The class will teach you the nuts and bolts; the volunteering and circulating will let people get to know you, feel comfortable with you, so they'll be willing (hopefully) to give you money and volunteer for you when you decide to run.

You can run a credible city council race on a few thousand dollars, and that's not as hard to raise as you might think, but you do have to be willing to ask friends, family, and anyone who might have heard of you to contribute. By credible, I mean enough money for pushcards, yard signs, and a couple of mailers to a targeted list of likely voters. With a little more money, you can afford to do a voter identification survey (who's for you, who's for the other guy, who's persuadable) and reminder calls to your voters on election day. The rest of it is door-to-door campaigning. If you can, start early enough to hit every likely voting household in the district at least twice.

My first race for council in 1998 was chock full of first-timer mistakes. Anna Falling and I raised and spent the same amount of money ($1,700 in the primary), but in 1996 she had been a paid staffer for the Oklahoma Republican State House committee, helping candidates in several districts. She knew about the free and low-cost resources available to candidates, and she knew how to target her efforts to the voters that mattered.

Michael, thank you for posting, this is good information to have.  Since I live in D-4 and likely will the rest of my life in Tulsa, there never seems to be a shortage of D or R candidates, so I doubt I'll ever have the need to throw my hat in the ring to bring about a general election.

Just curious, how much does a consultant like Jim Burdge charge campaigns?

[sgrizzle]

Just curious, how much does a consultant like Jim Burdge charge campaigns?

More $$ than I got. That's not saying much.

[cannon_fodder]

40% of Tulsans will not be allowed to vote for their City Council representative because there is no republican/democrat running in their district, shutting them out of primary voting.  And, since this is a primary vote and there is no republican/democrat running, the primary vote will determine the City Council seat.

Is that fair? 

If you are affiliated with a party with no one running on the ticket, then you could simply run on that parties ticket.  Poof, problem solved.  That said, the two party system sucks.

[sgrizzle]

If you are affiliated with a party with no one running on the ticket, then you could simply run on that parties ticket.  Poof, problem solved.  That said, the two party system sucks.

I like to party.

[Conan71]

If you are affiliated with a party with no one running on the ticket, then you could simply run on that parties ticket.  Poof, problem solved.  That said, the two party system sucks.

I believe in a seven party system.  One every night.