A Partisan Primary For Just 341 Voters
In Tuesdays primary 32,196 out of 222,145 registered voters cast ballots. That is only 14.49%.
The break out among the parties tells the reason why we should just dispense with partisan politics and just go non-partisan. 98.9% (31,855) took Democratic ballots. The remaining 341 ballots (0.0105913%) were split among Greens, Libertarians and Republicans. Of those only the Greens had a contested primary!
A mere 168 people voted in the Green primary for Mayor. 51 for Don De Vivo and 117 for Elston McCowan. These 168 voters represent 0.005218% of those that voted Tuesday and 0.0007562% of registered voters. Is partisanship at the municipal level worth the extra time and money for a primary and general so that a minor party can hold a primary?
Denise Watson-Wesley Coleman received the fewest votes in the Democratic primary for Mayor but she managed to get 2,047 votes. That is nearly 20 times as many as McCowan.
As a city we have no business wasting money on holding a primary and general election every two years. If necessary I’ll start a signature campaign to get a charter revision on an upcoming ballot (8/2010?) to change our system to non-partisan. But I’d prefer one of the members of the Board of Aldermen to introduce legislation to get this on the ballot so the voters can decide. This change is simple, doesn’t eliminate the number of elected offices and would save taxpayer’s money.
The challenges of a McCowan facing a Slay are apparent with our partisan system. Going non-partisan will not make challenging a well funded incumbent any easier or more difficult. I believe going non-partisan will increase the number of candidates in most wards. Wards with contested races the participation of voters was much higher than in wards without contested races. Non-contested odd-numbered wards had turnout as follows: 5th (9.1%), 7th (10.8%), 9th (11.8%), 11th (13.8%), 13th (15.8%), 15th (12.8%), 17th (%), 27th (10.0%). Contested wards were: 1st (15.2%), 3rd (15.8%), 21st (18.1%) 23rd (26.4%), 25th (16.5%).
Challengers to the Democratic nominee face an uphill battle from the start. First, most voters only vote for the Democrat. Two, everyone assumes the winner of the March Democratic primary is the winner before the April general election. So the reality is we have one election in March. We already have one election, we just call it a primary.
Besides going non-partisan, we need a system for instant-runoff voting (IRV). In this type of system you rank candidates rather than just pick one. From Wikipedia:
If no candidate is the first preference of a majority of voters, the candidate with the fewest number of first preference rankings is eliminated and that candidate’s ballots are redistributed at full value to the remaining candidates according to the next ranking on each ballot. This process is repeated until one candidate obtains a majority of votes among candidates not eliminated. The term “instant runoff” is used because the method is said to simulate a series of runoff elections tallied in rounds, as in an exhaustive ballot election.
When you have only two candidates it doesn’t matter because you know one will get at least 50% + 1. But when you have four (25th) or seven (23rd) candidates it can make a difference in the final outcome.
Look for a change to non-partisan races with IRV coming to a ballot near you in 2010.
But it makes the Democrats look popular… they can’t imagine anything better.
I think that John is on to something there. A democratic primary gives the feeling of inevitability to the whole political process, thus shutting out potntional contenders.
Your percentages are off a bit. While 168 out of 32,196 is .005218, that’s really 0.5218%. Same for the other number.
I support non-partisan, but I’m not so sure about IRV – maybe we should just plan on a runoff among the top two if no one gets 50% + 1, like other entities with non-partisan elections do. Trying to convince voters to do both may just give them another reason to say no to changing the present system. The biggest problem with IRV is that many, probably too many, voters (like my Mom, to name just one) will simply find it to be too complex and intimidating. I’d expect that most voters either will vote for just one candidate OR it’ll be impossible to show shades of grey in the rankings. (Another good review can also be found at http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/fea/20030526/202/403)
.
In the 23rd, if we were using IRV, I’m assuming I would’ve been able to rank the 7 candidates 1-7. In reality, I’d much rather be given 100 points to distribute as I see fit, something like 55-35-5-2-1-1-0, since there were some candidates that I could live with comfortably and a couple I really didn’t want to see being elected, at all. An actual two-person runoff gives voters that option, a single-digit mathematical formula really doesn’t. Plus, a two-person run-off allows a much-more-focused discussion of the issues. And with IRV, Joe Vacarro would still have run handily; I’m not sure if that would still be the case if he was running against a single, well-defined and well-spoken opponent.
.
A secondary concern with the present system is that the Democratic Party collects a fee ($333? $350?) from each candidate wanting to run in the primary. In Denver, where they have non-partisan races, all that’s required is: “The name of a candidate for district councilman shall be placed upon the ballot when a verified petition of not less than one hundred (100) signatures of registered electors, who reside in the district in which the candidate resides, shall have been filed in his behalf at least forty-five (45) days before the day of election in the manner and form and under the conditions established by the election commission, unless otherwise provided by ordinance in pursuance of this charter. The name of a candidate for mayor or auditor or councilman-at-large or election commissioner shall be placed upon the ballot when a verified petition of not less than three hundred (300) signatures of registered electors shall have been filed in his behalf at least forty-five (45) days before the day of election in the manner and form and under the conditions established by the election commission, unless otherwise provided by ordinance in pursuance of this charter.”
Instant runoff voting is a good way to go in this situation. Check out the instant runoff election results from Burlington, Vermont this week — out of nearly 9,000 votes, only 4 mismarked ballots. There were five candidates and voters did just fine. See http://www.burlingtovotes.org
It also just won in Memphis 71% to 29% is being implemented in cities like Oakland and Minneapolis, as laid out at http://www.instantrunoff.com
http://www.burlingtovotes.org doesn’t work . . .
Part of the reason for the disparity could be that when you go to the poll here, they don’t even ask what ballot you want. They just hand you a democratic ballot. I assume that at least some of the people going to vote don’t even know that there are other primaries going on (libertarian, republican). They show up, get handed a democrat ballot, and cast a vote.
You’re wrong, the election judges do ask what ballot you want. Why do you think there are Republican and Democrat judges at all elections?
Try this one: http://www.burlingtonvotes.org/
As an election worker, I can tell you that there’s no conspiracy. I do see some lazy poll workers who don’t bother asking because almost everyone asks for D. That’s not OK, but then again, if a voter hasn’t educated himself about how the election works, he is lazy too.
The people I see voting in primaries seem much more informed that those that vote in the general election. The percentage of these people who are “deceived” by election judges must be close to zero.
The results of the Burlington mayoral race validate my original concern. The person who finished first in the first and second rounds (Wright) finished second (and lost) in the third round. Wright also had his strength concentrated in one ward (#4), while Kiss had less support in any one ward, but more consistent support across all wards (and the third-place guy beat Wright in 5 of 7 wards). The end result (Round 3 IRV) shows the victor winning five wards by roughly 2 to 1, and losing two wards by the same margin. Obviously, this wan’t a unanimous decision, and it’s one that highlights some significant geographic differences. And assuming all seven wards have roughly the same number of voters, it’s interesting that in the two “losing” wards, voter turnout was significantly higher than in any of the “winning” wards.
.
In our 23rd Ward race, the winner, Joe Vaccaro, received 49%, Doug Dick received 20%, and the three women received between 8% and 11% each. I haven’t been able to locate a ward-by-ward breakdown, but I’d expect each of the candidates to have done best in their home locations, even with some wards having several candidates. I would interpret all this to being a direct result of who has the best GOTV (get out the vote) mechanism in place. When you have a race with seven candidates, it’s hard to figure out who’s who and what their positions may be, espcially in a ward like mine, that doesn’t have any major, high-profile or controversial issues. The candidate who has the most resources wins, since the others were running true grass-roots, low-budget campaigns. That advantage gets reduced, likely substantially, when it becomes a mano-a-mano race. Points of agreement can be moved past, and substantive differences can be debated.
.
The best example I can provide is the 1995 Denver Mayor’s race. Mary DeGroot won the first round by 97 votes over the incumbent, Wellington Webb, 42.8% to 42.7%. In the runoff, Mayor Webb won 54% to 46%. Would this have changed with IRV? I don’t know. I do know that I changed my vote during the runoff, and obviously other voters did, as well. Why? Because of more information. So yes, while turnout may drop off in a runoff, the odds are the people who are voting will be better informed than they were the first time. This then gets into the quantity versus quality argument – do we want more voters voting on style, or marginally fewer voting on substance?
Even though I’m not sold on the idea of non-partisan elections, I would fully support the use of IRV in all instances.
For one, it enhances the democratic process by increasing fairness. How democratic or fair is it if in a crowded primary or general election a candidate wins with only a small plurality of the vote?
Second, it allows for the development of minor parties since people would be able to vote, or register a protest vote, for a minor party candidate safe in the knowledge that their second choice vote will end up going to a major party candidate. Who knows, maybe a minor party candidate might actually get elected at some point under this system.
Ultimately IRV, results in a more complete description of the intent of the voting public.
As to Jimmy Z’s argument about informed voters, there the responsibility goes to the media and individual voters. I don’t think anyone would seriously argue that the media, at least the traditional forms, does a great, or even good, job at presenting the information to allow the public to be an informed citizenry. All too often the media ignores elections, especially local and state elections, or, if they do cover elections, only focusing on superficial process stories that teach voters all too little. Also, even the greatest media in the world won’t make an iota of difference if the information is ignored by the voters.
Furthermore, I’m not sure that a “different” result in the runoff necessarily means that voters were better informed the second time around. Perhaps just most of the 14.5% of voters who voted for neither Webb nor DeGroot in the first round preferred Webb to DeGroot all along? If so, IRV could have achieved the same result without the time and cost of the second round election.
Finally, having a second round election would almost certainly advantage the candidate who can raise enough money to fight the second round election.
Steve, I fully support your ideas with IRV and non-partisan ballots. However, I don’t think you should waste any time waiting for an alder person to introduce legislation regarding either. They, the mayor, and the vast majority of elected officials in St. Louis, are a product of the Democratic “ward org” system that a non-partisan ballot would eradicate, and as such, I think they would actually fight tooth and nail against it. I don’t want to discourage, because the Forest Park initiative drew heavy official criticism, and still won. I would meet up with Carla Scissors-Cohen(sp?) and see how she emerged victorious, that is, unless you already haven’t?
More power to you! 🙂
Please start the petition process now. We can’t wait for our Aldermen to get around to this. I think they should be separate issues and petitions. Let us know if we can help with time and/or money.