Reinventing municipal elections

By WAYNE GREENE Editorial Writer - 11/1/2009


With one of history's most ill-considered election plans about to be put before Tulsa voters, it seems like a good moment to reconsider the whole design of municipal elections — from the perspective of principles — and see what that implies about where we should go from here.

On the ballot: First, let's briefly review the City Council's proposed Rube Goldberg election plan that will appear on the Nov. 10 ballot.

The scheme is complex in design and effect. It would change and then re-change city councilors' terms in office in a peculiar choreography eventually resulting in annual City Council elections with one third of the council seats on the ballot each time. After the transition period, councilors would serve three-year terms so sometimes they would be up for re-election in even-numbered years, sometimes odd-numbered years.

It'll take a score card for any Tulsa citizen to know whether his council seat is on the ballot in any given year, which I suspect is exactly the purpose of the change.

If the citizens rise up in anger to throw out a bum council for incompetence or corruption, they'll find that it will take three years and three election cycles — as many as six votes — to accomplish that.

The effect — intentional I suspect — is to take City Council elections even further below the radar screens of voters and strengthen the power of council incumbents, the authors of the change.

I've tried unsuccessfully to find any other city that has this same odd-duck system. Some cities have staggered council terms and most large cities have their council elections in odd-numbered years, but none have tried this three-year-term, annual-election business.

Those are reasons enough to reject the plan, but there's more.

In even-numbered years, the law only allows cities to use the state's election mechanism — the voting machines and the established network of poll watchers — in certain months. September isn't one of the months when cities can depend on the state mechanism in even-numbered years, but September is the month when the city charter mandates that Tulsa's primaries must be held.

So, if the charter change passes, Tulsa would have to reinvent the election mechanism — presumably by buying a bunch of election machines and finding a bunch of poll watchers — to have one election every other year.

It's dumber than a bag full of hair.

The City Council was caught flat-footed on this one. The authors of the proposed charter change had no idea they were putting the city on the wrong side of state election law and setting the city up for an expensive and avoidable election cost.

They had a chance to pull the proposal from the ballot, but instead they bulled ahead with the promise that they'd come back later on and clean up their mess with another charter change to move the primary election to one of the months when the state's mechanism is available.

Anyone in a mood to trust them on this one?

Election principles: What should city elections look like?

Perhaps we could agree on some principles first, and then see what they imply about the specifics.

First, we want — or should want — an election process that will draw high turnouts. American democracy assumes that voters are educated enough and wise enough to make their own decisions. The more voters, the more diversity at the polls, the better. It means we get a truer test of the people's will.

Beyond democratic philosophy, high turnouts are in the best interest of Tulsa for very practical reasons. Our city has a zealous minority of fringe voters. They don't represent the community's desires, but they vote rabidly, even in elections hidden by the City Council. In their paranoid world, Election Day is the only moment they think they have any power, and they're pretty much right about that.

High turnouts dilute the fringe vote and moderate the results. Limiting the franchise to those with passionate intensity is a recipe for mere anarchy.

Second, we want an election process that will capture the public's interest. Timing here is everything. Some of us think politically constantly, but most Americans have been trained to think about public office on a two-year cycle, only in years when the Olympic games are played. If there's beach volleyball on TV, it's time to consider the presidency. Oklahoma's governor comes with figure skating.

An annual election builds voter fatigue and guarantees that half the elections will come unawares upon the constituency.

Finally, we want an election process that is relatively inexpensive. This is definitely the lowest priority here, because elections are not all that expensive and, of course, democracy is worth the price. But at a time when the city can only afford part-time police and fire departments because of low tax revenue, we need to keep costs in the conversation. If there is a way for the city to minimize its election costs without violating the first two principles, it's a good idea.

The general election solution: All of those factors point to one clear conclusion about Tulsa's City Council elections: They should be massed en bloc at the same time as the national and state election process — in even-numbered years with primaries held in July and general elections in November.

Because of the excitement generated

by the top-of-the-ticket races (the president or the governor) those races draw the biggest crowds of voters.

Because of that same excitement, ordinary voters are prepared to think about politics (locally) at the same time.

Because the state is already paying for the poll watchers, the city can piggy-back and avoid the costs of poll watchers. We would pay only for the cost of printing our ballots.

Will the municipal elections be overshadowed by the higher profile races on the same day? Yes, but that doesn't mean voters won't be able to reserve an appropriately sized corner of their brains for the City Council.

The question raised by the upcoming charter change proposal is whether the City Council members responsible are using any corner of their brains thinking about the voters.



Wayne Greene 581-8308
wayne.greene@tulsaworld.com


_________________________________________________

Tulsa World Reader Comments
_________________________________________________

Four Sixteen Rigby, Tulsa (11/1/2009 10:02:40 AM)
Ding ding ding ding. Give Wayne Green a kewpie doll. More editorials like this are what a first rate newspaper should be doing. Instead of the lightly researched, ideologically skewed, and naive crap we see in the other editorials this morning. Of course the City Council is making it more complex and confusing for the average voter. Of course they are making it harder for the voters to throw the bums out. Of course they are doing it on purpose. The first instinct of any elected official is always, ALWAYS, how to consolidate power and stay in power until something better comes along. Doing what's best for the electorate? That is way, WAY, down toward the bottom of the list. If that sentiment even makes the list at all.

Corvetteguy, Tulsa (11/1/2009 12:35:05 PM)
i'm telling you the TW is coming around. Mr. Bobby Lorton is taking charge. A step in the right direction.

The A Team, (11/1/2009 2:20:23 PM)
I agree with much of this op-ed, except for one thing: The Tulsa World can't have it both ways. It's ridiculous to claim to want higher voter turnout while pushing non-partisan elections, that have shown to encourage lower voter turn-out. BTW, if the Tulsa World is in favor of non-partisan elections they should demand the real deal and come out in favor of allowing only candidates who are registered independent voters to become candidates or hold offices in those races. Otherwise, non-partisan elections are really just non-partisan elections in name only. One more thing, we should get rid of the straight party voting on ballots so voters actually have to think about the person they are voting for instead of just blindly voting for the party.

Rand, (11/1/2009 7:19:02 PM)
Wayne Green is a progressive and the Tulsa World is a progressive newspaper. I think that both Mr. Green and the World would be proud to agree with this. But Progressives, about 100 years ago, believed that low voter turnouts were good, as high turnouts empowered corrupt big-city political machines. Progressives therefore worked to have municipal elections scheduled at odd times when only the "right" voters would show up at the polling places. Progressives also believed in bypassing legislative bodies like city councils, state legislatures, and the U.S. Congress, as being similarly corrupt. Progressives believed--and still believe--that having unaccountable experts--removed from all the "evil influences" of politics--is the best way toward good government. Evidently, Mr. Green and the editors of World are unhappy because the "wrong" people have been showing up to vote in Tulsa's oddly scheduled elections. So, in this editorial, Mr. Green has misinterpreted and misrepresented the facts, and reasoned from faulty premises, but has amazingly reached the proper conclusion--that city elections should be scheduled to coincide with state elections. Congratulations to Mr. Green and the World editorial board. They have endorsed a good idea, albeit for the wrong reasons. I hope that they "enjoy" the results!

Rupert Shootman, Tulsa (11/2/2009 11:57:28 AM)
Not buying it Wayne-O. You fellas support non-partisan elections, don't you? Every city with non-partisan elections see their turnouts drop bigger Barack Obama's ego. Today you're talking out of the right side of your mouth, but given a chance, you'll be singing a different tune out of the left side.



Email to a Friend
Main Menu