Let's keep local races nonpartisan
My column today:
I have to agree with Marcus Kindley. Partisan races probably would draw more voters to the polls for Greensboro City Council elections. High Point's, too.
But that's as far as I can walk down that path with the chairman of Guilford County's Republican Party.
I especially disagree with his assertion in a letter to the editor published Tuesday that, "Nonpartisan elections do not serve the public interest."
I believe nonpartisan elections produce better government at the local level, and that very much serves the public interest. ...
Of course, maybe I'm wrong and the highly partisan Guilford County Board of Commissioners really operates more effectively than do the city councils in Greensboro and High Point.
Yeah, right.
The low voter turnout last week -- 12 percent in Greensboro, 11 percent in High Point -- certainly was shameful. It's amazing that so many residents of the two cities didn't care to participate in the selection of local leaders whose decisions determine the level and quality of basic services like public safety, sanitation, water and sewer and transportation, and how much these services will cost taxpayers.
Shameful, but ultimately not important because other people did vote. And those votes were counted 100 percent. City council members were elected just as legally and legitimately with an 11 or 12 percent turnout as they would have been if everyone had voted.
These leaders can take satisfaction in knowing they were elected without attachment to any political party. They were elected to represent their constituents and not the interests of Republicans or Democrats. That gives them an independence that elected officials in partisan systems rarely possess.
County commissioners, state legislators and members of Congress who run under a party banner serve under that banner once they're in office. Sometimes you wonder whether they serve the people or the party. If they follow the party line, are they thinking for themselves? Are they listening to their constituents?
Sure, some break ranks sometimes -- and often they pay a price for it. Party discipline provides a powerful incentive to stay in line, particularly when it's enforced with financial support, the best committee assignments or other perks.
Why are Guilford County commissioners always so divided, even when members change over time? It's because they're split into two competing factions -- Democrats and Republicans -- from the moment they file to run for office. It's almost a matter of principle that one side can't cooperate with the other. That serves the public interest?
Maybe party politics spur more people to get out and vote. I don't know for sure that's true. It might be that more people vote in commissioners' elections because they’re held at the same time as state and national elections. Greensboro and High Point hold their elections in off years. If they changed their schedules, they'd draw greater voter participation.
But I'd leave them where they are. If that produces a meager voter turnout, I'm sorry. At the same time, I don't see the benefit of trying to attract the ignorant and uninterested.
If it would take partisan labels on the candidates to excite more voters, I say forget it. Who wants more people who vote only for the party rather than for the man or the woman?
I don't have much respect for someone who knows little or nothing about the candidates and simply chooses to vote for the Republicans or the Democrats. If that's all you know as a voter, stay home. Let voters who are better informed decide.
There are other reasons why nonpartisan elections are better, especially for local government offices. Police and fire protection, garbage collection, street maintenance, water and sewer service, parks and recreation aren't partisan issues. When a council is trying to decide where to build a new fire station, does there really have to be a Republican position and a Democratic position? There might be if that's how the council is divided.
Just as importantly, more and more voters are disassociating themselves from either party. Unaffiliated voters account for nearly 20 percent of registration in North Carolina, and the number is rising. Why should all those people want partisan elections at the local level?
By the way, it's still difficult in partisan elections for unaffiliated candidates to get on the ballot. Please don't discourage 20 percent of the electorate from attempting to run for local office by creating a partisan system. Democrats and Republicans might want to do that, but it wouldn't serve the public interest.
I think Kindley is wrong that voter turnout for municipal elections will continue to slip. A good, competitive mayor's race in Greensboro in 2007 will bring out more voters.
But party politics? Voters who are only interested in that can find somewhere else to play. Let's not confuse partisanship with the public interest.
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
With all due respect, Doug, just who are you trying to fool? You can cry shame on the people who didn't vote all you want. Local government in Guilford County, High Point or Greensboro is all about sucking tax dollars away from citizens and giving them to developers. Need proof? Look at the ammendments to the Land Grant plan last night at Greensboro City Council on Hilltop Road last night.(For the record, I'm a voting citizen in North High Point, but it's the same here). Even though overwhelmingly, the community was opposed to the development, Greensboro city council said "screw you, we need to keep the developers happy". Well, so be it. But don't be surprised when people feel disenfranchised and refuse to vote.
At the very least, making local city council elections partisan would put the onus of a party platform on a candidate. There's no way Dot Kearns could claim to be a Republican (frankly, with her Marxist views on education and redistribution of wealth, I think she would strain the bounds of crediblity calling herself a Democrat for that matter). Maybe they won't practice what they'd preach, but candidates would at least they'd be on record as supporting a political philosophy the voters could agree with or disagree with.
As it stands now, it's all about who gets named to the post by you and the High Point Enterprise. THis is why I have to laugh out loud when you say things like your paper's endorsement has no impact on an election. Quite frankly, as nobody knows the candidate, your endorsement decides the election, plain and simple. Now, if only I could determine the symbiotic relationship between your paper and the local developers, I might actually understand politics around here.
Posted on November 16, 2005 1:30 PM
TH,
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Nature----and politics-----abhor a vacuum!
In the absence of party elements, the role of the
manipulating media is enhanced.
Nonpartisan Clark even wrote a while back that to pretend that judicial races are nonpartisan was a laugh....yet, he wants readers now to pretend
that local council races 'really' are
nonpartisan....now that's a hoot.
Parties can by tyrannical and trivial in their efforts to quash individuality, but they play a
crucial role in nominations and elections.
Posted on November 16, 2005 10:25 PM
Doug,
As I presented evidence yesterday from the 2004 school board election, non-partisan races are not non-partisan. The News-Record ran a full page ad a few days before the election sponsored by the Democrat party. It listed Dot Kearns and Kris Cooke as candidates for BOE. The ad made it quite clear that these to candidates were supported by the Democrat party. An analysis of those that voted straight party Democrat ticket and for Dot Kearns had a very high correlation. People came to polls with instructions to vote straight party line and Dot Kearns. So, why have a non-partisan race, if political paties advertise for candidates? Let's at least get honest and make these partisan races. Some of the candidates treat it that way.
Posted on November 17, 2005 8:57 AM
Doug,
As I presented evidence yesterday from the 2004 school board election, non-partisan races are not non-partisan. The News-Record ran a full page ad a few days before the election sponsored by the Democrat party. It listed Dot Kearns and Kris Cooke as candidates for BOE. The ad made it quite clear that these two candidates were supported by the Democrat party. An analysis of those that voted straight party Democrat ticket and for Dot Kearns had a very high correlation. People came to polls with instructions to vote straight party Democrat ticket and Dot Kearns. So, why have a non-partisan race, if political parties advertise for candidates? Let's at least get honest and make these partisan races. Some of the candidates treat it that way.
Posted on November 17, 2005 9:01 AM
Stormy,
I'll agree with you to this extent: Nonpartisan races sometimes are partisan.
But not always. What about the instances when you have two candidates of the same party running against each other? It happens pretty often -- in most High Point wards this year, actually.
And then, what about candidates who don't belong to a political party? Why should they be effectively excluded from running by ballot access restrictions written by the major parties? I believe Greensboro's Sandy Carmany is unaffiliated. Where would she fit in a partisan system?
Posted on November 17, 2005 9:10 AM