Poll: Can we elect more Independent candidates like Scott Ogilvie to the St. Louis Board of Aldermen?
Last Tuesday voters in St. Louis’ 24th ward elected Independent Scott Ogilvie rather than Democrat Tom Bauer. Â In a city where the winner of the March Democratic primary is almost always the winner, the election of Ogilvie is a big deal.
Thus, the poll question this week is Can we elect more Independent candidates like Scott Ogilvie to the St. Louis Board of Aldermen?
The choices I’ve provided are:
- Yes, bright young candidates free of the local Democratic machine can be elected again
- No, won’t happen again for years
- Maybe, but Tom Bauer winning the Democratic primary helped Ogilvie win
- I hope not, we need to stick with electing Democrats
- Unsure/no opinion
The choices are presented randomly. Â The poll is in the upper right of the site.
– Steve Patterson
Maybe. Part of it will be the dynamics of each ward, part of it will be incumbency and part of it will be the strengths, and baggage, of any “machine” candidate. I don’t know that much about the 24th ward, but the combination of a not-universally-popular (aka previously-impeached) machine candidate, combined with an electorate looking for change, probably made this a unique situation. In my ward, the machine candidate won the last time around, through a combination of message, financing and endorsements that were superior to any of his challengers. Bottom line, if voters are PO’ed, they’re likely to try change; if they’re fairly satisfied, there’s no real reason to change . . . .
Maybe. Part of it will be the dynamics of each ward, part of it will be incumbency and part of it will be the strengths, and baggage, of any “machine” candidate. I don’t know that much about the 24th ward, but the combination of a not-universally-popular (aka previously-impeached) machine candidate, combined with an electorate looking for change, probably made this a unique situation. In my ward, the machine candidate won the last time around, through a combination of message, financing and endorsements that were superior to any of his challengers. Bottom line, if voters are PO’ed, they’re likely to try change; if they’re fairly satisfied, there’s no real reason to change . . . .
Of course the voters must have more than one candidate on the ballot to try change.
Of course the voters must have more than one candidate on the ballot to try change.
We just need more good candidates period. Doesn’t matter if Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green, or whatever.
I would also reject the implication that someone who “rejects” party labels is somehow inherently better than someone who doesn’t. I don’t mean to criticize Scott Ogilvie, who I would have voted for if I lived in the 24th Ward, but just because someone claims to be “independent” doesn’t mean that they aren’t carrying the bags for some vested interest in the area.
We just need more good candidates period. Doesn’t matter if Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green, or whatever.
I would also reject the implication that someone who “rejects” party labels is somehow inherently better than someone who doesn’t. I don’t mean to criticize Scott Ogilvie, who I would have voted for if I lived in the 24th Ward, but just because someone claims to be “independent” doesn’t mean that they aren’t carrying the bags for some vested interest in the area.
Good point!
Well said
Good point!
As I pointed out previously your insistence on reducing the number of the members of the Board of Alderman works against your intentions. I agree independents, or whoever have a shot at becoming alderman now. Scott Ogilvie has proven that. Your wish for consolidation of the Board of Aldermen will more likely put races into the hands of the money changers at the temple.
For instance do you think Conway, consolidating his ward with the 15th and 11th will allow for green, blue, orange or any independent candidates? Fewer wards will only help the big money people, it won’t help the citizens.
And so what if alderman have the last word on every piece of useless bullshit in their ward right now. Do you really believe that will change with fewer aldermen?
The ability of the citizens of St. Louis to have a voice in their government is at its highest right now with 28 wards, reducing the number of wards will do nothing but further enable the same people who use money as votes to extend the current corrupt system of government.
The reality is while you celebrate Scott Ogilvie you undermine future efforts for new independents (or whatever party) by supporting the shrinking of democratic choice.
Fewer aldermen is only efficient for the big money people who bribe everyone, it is not in the interests of the ordinary citizen.
That is also why I believe consolidating County munis or merging the city with the county also represent a mixed bag. I’m not sure the benefits (mostly to the wealthy) outweigh the negatives (for the citizens).
Until there is major changes of policy in the current political system right now, today, it is fools gold to think changes in political structure will make a difference. The proposed structural changes constantly presented on this site will only further disenfranchise citizens in the name of efficiency. (In the end efficiency is a code word for easy bribes by the wealthy).
As I pointed out previously your insistence on reducing the number of the members of the Board of Alderman works against your intentions. I agree independents, or whoever have a shot at becoming alderman now. Scott Ogilvie has proven that. Your wish for consolidation of the Board of Aldermen will more likely put races into the hands of the money changers at the temple.
For instance do you think Conway, consolidating his ward with the 15th and 11th will allow for green, blue, orange or any independent candidates? Fewer wards will only help the big money people, it won’t help the citizens.
And so what if alderman have the last word on every piece of useless bullshit in their ward right now. Do you really believe that will change with fewer aldermen?
The ability of the citizens of St. Louis to have a voice in their government is at its highest right now with 28 wards, reducing the number of wards will do nothing but further enable the same people who use money as votes to extend the current corrupt system of government.
The reality is while you celebrate Scott Ogilvie you undermine future efforts for new independents (or whatever party) by supporting the shrinking of democratic choice.
Fewer aldermen is only efficient for the big money people who bribe everyone, it is not in the interests of the ordinary citizen.
That is also why I believe consolidating County munis or merging the city with the county also represent a mixed bag. I’m not sure the benefits (mostly to the wealthy) outweigh the negatives (for the citizens).
Until there is major changes of policy in the current political system right now, today, it is fools gold to think changes in political structure will make a difference. The proposed structural changes constantly presented on this site will only further disenfranchise citizens in the name of efficiency. (In the end efficiency is a code word for easy bribes by the wealthy).
The one flaw in your small = accessible argument is the communication piece. Many times “small” = a very small group of insiders (think Democratic ward committees) making decisions in a vaccuum, with little outreach to the larger community. And since there are so many of them, it’s harder for the “mainstream media” to track them and to report on their activities. In cities with fewer legislators, they’re better known, individually, and typically under a much greater journalistic microscope. Or, to put it another way, can you name the mayors of Glendale, Shrewsbury and/or Ricmond Heights? Or any of their city council members? Sure, there will always a few locals who will know, but 95%+ will remain clueless.
It is true corruption can occur at any size community organization, and you will always have people who could care less about what is going on. I’m only pointing out that consolidating wards will likely have the effect of turning the Board of Alderman into elite positions.(further entrenching the current machine system).
In fact I would argue that we are beginning to see new faces on the Board in recent years precisely because the entry level is accessible to new people. I believe the smaller wards makes it easier for someone like Scott Ogilivie to break into politics and no doubt will also be a factor in maintaining his position going forward.
Well said
The one flaw in your small = accessible argument is the communication piece. Many times “small” = a very small group of insiders (think Democratic ward committees) making decisions in a vaccuum, with little outreach to the larger community. And since there are so many of them, it’s harder for the “mainstream media” to track them and to report on their activities. In cities with fewer legislators, they’re better known, individually, and typically under a much greater journalistic microscope. Or, to put it another way, can you name the mayors of Glendale, Shrewsbury and/or Ricmond Heights? Or any of their city council members? Sure, there will always a few locals who will know, but 95%+ will remain clueless.
Steve, why don’t you just go back to advocating less alderman? The state bill that made the most sense to me this year was when a bill to give the city control of its police department ended up having an amendment attached to it requiring the number of aldermen to be cut in half, two reforms in one that the city desparately needs to go forward.
Steve, why don’t you just go back to advocating less alderman? The state bill that made the most sense to me this year was when a bill to give the city control of its police department ended up having an amendment attached to it requiring the number of aldermen to be cut in half, two reforms in one that the city desparately needs to go forward.
We need to have a serious local discussion about all facets of how the city and region should be governed. Battles over one aspect (earnings tax, number of wards) is exhausting and unproductive.
We need to have a serious local discussion about all facets of how the city and region should be governed. Battles over one aspect (earnings tax, number of wards) is exhausting and unproductive.
The most productive discussions seem to be centered on sharing services, not cutting the number of elected officials. Why not push for a regional police force and fire protection system? It worked with the consolidation of sewage districts into MSD. For police, it would mean the end of the fight over local control. For fire protection, it would end concerns about fire departments in some of the smaller districts. And every tiny county municipality could retain their 5-7 aldermen.
Why not talk about it all? Trying to get every municipality to agree to shared fire & police is a huge challenge due to the number of players involved. But I’d like to see us have the broader discussions, we may still just pick out a couple of things to solve but the initial talks need to be about more than 1-2 issues.
Well, like Medicare and Social Security, at the local level, police and fire services take up the bulk of the local government budget pie, so reforms and cost savings there would be a big deal. But sure Steve, the broader discussion would be good. Who will lead it? What local leader could survive the thousand cuts stemming from leading an effort to reduce the number of elected positions in our region? Who would listen? Who cares?
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time! It’s easy to talk about the big/total picture, but the devil is in the details. Change in government rarely, rarely happens with a clean sheet of paper; 99% of the time it’s incremental, with multiple small changes. And in this economy, most change will come from stretching declining tax revenues further.
It will be interesting to see whether in four years the democratic party in St. Louis mounts a serious challenge to retake the 24th ward? Will Ogilivie change sides and become a democrat during his term? It would not be very surprising to see one of these two things happen. To secure his seat, some dems leaders might encourage Scott to register as a democrat.
It will be interesting to see whether in four years the democratic party in St. Louis mounts a serious challenge to retake the 24th ward? Will Ogilivie change sides and become a democrat during his term? It would not be very surprising to see one of these two things happen. To secure his seat, some dems leaders might encourage Scott to register as a democrat.
It’ll also be intersting to see how effective Ogilivie actually is in pursuing an out-of-of-the-box agenda. Between not knowing the nuances of getting things done in our byzantine city beauracracy and the potential for the machine to sabatoge his efforts, constituents want results and will tolerate only a small learning curve. Look at Lieberman in congress – he only gets respected when his vote is needed . . . .
Had Waterhouse won the primary, I wonder if the results would have been different? One of the main jobs of the committee people is to select candidates. The democratic committee people backed independent Ogilivie over democrat Bauer. Now what do they do?
Hope for the best, try to co-opt him, and/or cultivate a viable opponent. The only reason the committee people supported him, this time, is that they could not support Bauer. The real question is whether or not the Dem party can move beyond Bauer vs. Waterhouse, since the camps seem to be evenly split.
I think it would be very difficult for the 24th ward democratic committee to support an independent over a qualified democrat. The way I understand the system, whether it’s an open or closed committee (“open” I think means a vote, “closed” means no vote and the committee people hand pick their candidate), the committee has a process to select its candidate for the primary/their endorsement.
It’ll also be intersting to see how effective Ogilivie actually is in pursuing an out-of-of-the-box agenda. Between not knowing the nuances of getting things done in our byzantine city beauracracy and the potential for the machine to sabatoge his efforts, constituents want results and will tolerate only a small learning curve. Look at Lieberman in congress – he only gets respected when his vote is needed . . . .
We need to have a serious local discussion about all facets of how the city and region should be governed. Battles over one aspect (earnings tax, number of wards) is exhausting and unproductive.
Had Waterhouse won the primary, I wonder if the results would have been different? One of the main jobs of the committee people is to select candidates. The democratic committee people backed independent Ogilivie over democrat Bauer. Now what do they do?
The most productive discussions seem to be centered on sharing services, not cutting the number of elected officials. Why not push for a regional police force and fire protection system? It worked with the consolidation of sewage districts into MSD. For police, it would mean the end of the fight over local control. For fire protection, it would end concerns about fire departments in some of the smaller districts. And every tiny county municipality could retain their 5-7 aldermen.
Why not talk about it all? Trying to get every municipality to agree to shared fire & police is a huge challenge due to the number of players involved. But I’d like to see us have the broader discussions, we may still just pick out a couple of things to solve but the initial talks need to be about more than 1-2 issues.
Well, like Medicare and Social Security, at the local level, police and fire services take up the bulk of the local government budget pie, so reforms and cost savings there would be a big deal. But sure Steve, the broader discussion would be good. Who will lead it? What local leader could survive the thousand cuts stemming from leading an effort to reduce the number of elected positions in our region? Who would listen? Who cares?
It is true corruption can occur at any size community organization, and you will always have people who could care less about what is going on. I’m only pointing out that consolidating wards will likely have the effect of turning the Board of Alderman into elite positions.(further entrenching the current machine system).
In fact I would argue that we are beginning to see new faces on the Board in recent years precisely because the entry level is accessible to new people. I believe the smaller wards makes it easier for someone like Scott Ogilivie to break into politics and no doubt will also be a factor in maintaining his position going forward.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time! It’s easy to talk about the big/total picture, but the devil is in the details. Change in government rarely, rarely happens with a clean sheet of paper; 99% of the time it’s incremental, with multiple small changes. And in this economy, most change will come from stretching declining tax revenues further.
Hope for the best, try to co-opt him, and/or cultivate a viable opponent. The only reason the committee people supported him, this time, is that they could not support Bauer. The real question is whether or not the Dem party can move beyond Bauer vs. Waterhouse, since the camps seem to be evenly split.
I think it would be very difficult for the 24th ward democratic committee to support an independent over a qualified democrat. The way I understand the system, whether it’s an open or closed committee (“open” I think means a vote, “closed” means no vote and the committee people hand pick their candidate), the committee has a process to select its candidate for the primary/their endorsement.
I haven’t been sworn in yet, so this is just a comment from a resident: The local democratic committee’s really don’t seem that strong anymore. Typical April turnout is 10 – 20%, meaning there is a big pool of potential voters a candidate could appeal to (yes, those people are obviously a little harder to reach than those involved with the party). For instance, Shane Cohn had to run against his local party committee, and he also came out on top.
I think the reason why more non party / independent folks haven’t come out on top comes down to effort – if you are going to run as an independent, you need to really bust your tail. You need a little money, but more than that you have to put in a lot of legwork and you need a good group of volunteers to help you. I’d guess that either myself or one of my volunteers probably had a personal or email interaction with 75% of the 1,350 votes we got. You just have use every means available to communicate with people.
I haven’t been sworn in yet, so this is just a comment from a resident: The local democratic committee’s really don’t seem that strong anymore. Typical April turnout is 10 – 20%, meaning there is a big pool of potential voters a candidate could appeal to (yes, those people are obviously a little harder to reach than those involved with the party). For instance, Shane Cohn had to run against his local party committee, and he also came out on top.
I think the reason why more non party / independent folks haven’t come out on top comes down to effort – if you are going to run as an independent, you need to really bust your tail. You need a little money, but more than that you have to put in a lot of legwork and you need a good group of volunteers to help you. I’d guess that either myself or one of my volunteers probably had a personal or email interaction with 75% of the 1,350 votes we got. You just have use every means available to communicate with people.
It’s great to volunteer or work for a campaign that is not only the right campaign to support, but that wins in the end. The faces that opened their doors to me said “your candidate is going to win”, and that was that.
It’s great to volunteer or work for a campaign that is not only the right campaign to support, but that wins in the end. The faces that opened their doors to me said “your candidate is going to win”, and that was that.