Poll, Should St. Louis’ Municipal Elections Go Non-Partisan?
St. Louis likes to pretend like we have multiple active political parties. We don’t. This year the Green party has a Mayoral primary but that is it. For decades now the real election has been the Democratic primary with the general election a month later simply being a formality — an expensive formality.
We have no good reason to continue to have partisan primary elections followed by a general. None. It costs taxpayers additional money and requires two trips to the polls when one would suffice.
In the 23rd Ward we have seven candidates in the Democratic primary. Reading their answers to my questionnaire you can tell that not all are Democrats. But to win an election in this city, it is said, you must run as a Democrat. When I ran four years ago I remember talking to an older man going in to vote. “I’m voting for the Democrat, ” he said. It was the primary and both candidates were Democrats. There was no Republican, Green or Libertarian ballot as an option.
Please vote in the poll in the upper right corner of the home page and share your comments below.
once i walked in for a primary election, and was told “you look like a democrat” and given the primary ticket for the dems. it is almost joke like here.
I couldn’t agree more. I would love to run for an office, but I won’t lie and call myself a democrat to do it. I think half of citizens here aren’t really democrats either, they just only have one choice on the ballot. If I had to guess, most people in St. Louis are a lot more moderate than only having a democrat ticket implies.
Any answers from the questioner going to be posted from the
Northside? I would like to see any from the 3rd ward.
I had never even considered this issue until you wrote about it. You make some compelling points.
I don’t really see how going non-partisan would help matters. If everyone’s already “in” one political party, there really isn’t much of a political party to speak of. Besides, going non-partisan wouldn’t really solve the problem since the party ward organizations, and their endorsements, would still be the main game in town.
If, as there must be, other, non-Democratic political viewpoints in the city, then it’s up to the respective political parties and their like-minded citizens, to build up their parties from the ground up to ensure they are represented.
Not only would this help the other parties build strength in other elections, such as Congress and statewide elections in case of the Republicans, or help gain a foothold in the case of the Greens, but it would also help reinvigorate Democratic city politics as the remaining Democrats would be real Democrats in both name and belief.
The big advantage of non-partisan races is when the current office holder decides to not, or can’t, run again. An incumbent will almost always have an advantage, through name recognition and an established history of constituent service, over a challenger, unless they’re truly incompetent or divisive. This is pretty clearly illustrated in this primary in the 23rd Ward. The party leadership (a small, closed group) has thrown their weight, along with their unions’, behind one candidate. In a non-partisan race, I doubt that this could or would be happening, and all seven candidates would (have a chance to?) be judged on their individual qualifications. And whether it’s St. Louis (partisan) or Denver (non-partisan), the real political inclinations of every candidate rarely stay concealed for long. But when the party posturing gets diminished/goes away, it allows whoever’s elected to focus on solving local problems, which rarely have a party agenda attached to them!
.
That said, it’d be interesting to know (and I don’t have the answer) to see how partisan elections are working out in Louisville, KY., where the heavily-democratic city merged recently with the predominantly-republican county. It could be very informative should a city-county merger gain traction here. Would a shift to non-partisan races in the city be viewed as a negtive or a positive? I don’t know . . .
Aren’t the primary elections paid for by the political parties anyway? Or they should be at least. As a non-democrat I would agree it’s a little depressing to have no one to vote for during this primary, but then again, I’m not running either.
A primary is run strictly for the parties themselves to pick a single candidate to run against an opposing candidate of another party. If the democratic party chooses to not have a primary, could they put all their candidate on the general election ballot come April? Would that in and of itself be a good enough incentive to get candidate from other parties to file (since the democratic vote would be split among several at that point)?
By definition, a non-partisan election eliminates the primary. In most cases, either the top vote-getter wins, even if they don’t get 50% +1, or the top two have a run-off, where, with only two candidates, one will get 50% + 1.