Bring back partisan local elections

March 17, 2006

RECENT FRANZI:

 Why it's called 'Inside Track'

Italian-American cultural history 101

Dispelling illegal immigration myths

The sky will not fall; vote 'No' on Question 2

SOME THOUGHTS ON ISRAEL  (pre-Iraq invasion)

The road to nowhere

Bemoaning vote-at-home

Beware liberal boogy men

The rising cost of politics

Talk radio myths

Another stab at decrying policy by bureaucracy

Bet on Latas as the Democrat Dark Horse

The tail wags the dog in local government

Handicapping the CD8 Democratic race

Handicapping the GOP race to replace Kolbe

Cowardly town manager vote puts Sweet in a tight box

Miers sunk Miers' nomination, not the 'Extreme Right'

Chris Limberis: Reporter

When it comes to poverty, look at who's exploiting who

Column critics wrong

Democracy ain't the same everywhere

Save a buck, let 'em vote

A wildcat misnomer

March 15, 2006 - Oro Valley is closing another election cycle. This one had but one defining issue - the Vestar tax incentive - from which to differentiate the candidates. How this upcoming council will perform on other issues is as big a mystery as the last one, also chosen on that same single issue.

Oro Valley exemplifies what exists in other communities in much of America - a total lack of clarity from those seeking elected positions and the high probability that their lack of coherent agendas will simply empower the existing bureaucracy and the special interests they favor to continue implementation of whatever was already happening. Great for continuity, not good for real representative government.

Partisan local races once resolved much of this by placing a brand name on candidates clarifying choices. We should return to that system - it worked much better than the current non-partisan one.

Labeling is good. Beware the motives of those saying it isn't. People who object to being "labeled" are either confused or trying to weasel out of something.

The late Lew Murphy, who served as mayor of Tucson (one place in Arizona that still has partisan elections) said "there is no Republican or Democrat way to collect garbage." He was wrong. A glance at basic core beliefs shows Republicans favor contracting to private haulers while Democrats favor municipal employees, preferably union members. Lew knew better, but he had a Democrat council.

Partisan elections have many virtues. They make some group in the community responsible for finding candidates, something many towns with calcified councils like Marana sorely need. Equally important, they monitor their behavior after election and hold them accountable for that common political ailment, taking a dive on a commitment.

Unfortunately, even where elections are partisan, too many modern political parties have acquiesced to allowing themselves to exist for the candidates and office holders and not the other way around.

I recall a conservative former New Yorker chastising a Senator at a GOP meeting. She was told by a party leader "You can't talk to a Senator that way." Her response was, "Where I come from, we get to pick them, they don't get to pick us."

That's the problem - those who picked them are too fractured in a non-partisan electorate to jack them up. And the other side - those elected have no built-in support group and no automatic allies but are on their own in a sea of sharks.

A former role of political parties was establishing meaningful platforms. National parties still have them and that has some bearing on how we view their respective labels. Restoring local platforms would be healthy for discussion and education. The media might even learn something.

Some worry about the influence of special interests in partisan politics. All interests are special, from the Sierra Club and the NRA to the neighborhood group wanting a stoplight. Political parties make the process more transparent by forcing those interests into a coalition, what any political party ultimately is.

Local parties could replace "vote for Harry, he's a swell guy" which is the level of most council races with "vote for Harry, he supports A, B, and C."

Political parties always had numerous roles throughout history that their removal from local elections has stifled. Registering voters and turning them out was until recently a party function. So was keeping the vote counting honest. That's why each party had a formal role in that process. One consequence of the non-partisan election is to hand this over to the bureaucracy. No problem there. Bureaucrats never have their own agenda, come from a different gene pool, and would never be tempted to fudge election results. And the always alert media would catch them. Right?

The biggest single problem with most local councils is they lack coherence and consistent agendas. Bringing back partisan elections would help correct that. Repealing the old "reform" that abolished them would be a genuine reform.

BACK TO TOP

EMIL FRANZI

EMAIL FRANZI

BUT WATCH WHAT YOU SAY!