No One Voted

Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

NHI Newsletter

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

by Paul Bass | Nov 5, 2009 1:11 pm

(21) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Politics

Would open primaries help? German-style election rules? Or four-year terms?

Those were among the ideas offered by leaders across the political spectrum in the wake of New Haven’s voter washout Tuesday.

Just 17.6 percent of the city’s 63,989 registered voters came to the polls. The turnout in the mayor’s race was even lower: 16.25 percent.

That meant Mayor John DeStefano (pictured) won his record ninth term in a race that drew just 10,399 lever-pullers. That number was even lower than 2007’s, when 11,952, or 22 percent, bothered to vote.

Democratic, Republican and Green leaders interviewed agreed that a lack of competition—viable candidates challenging entrenched Democratic incumbents—leads to the city’s perennial downward voting trend.

The wards that had competitive aldermanic elections Tuesday—such as 10, 11, and 18—also had the highest turnouts. (One exception: Westville’s Ward 25, which always has among the top voting totals. Its Democratic aldermanic candidate had no opponent this year. But turnout did drop there from two years ago, when there was a two-way aldermanic race. In 2007, 1,146 ward voters showed up; in 2009, 756.)

The mayor had only token opposition this year. Most aldermen ran unopposed.

That has become the norm in New Haven.

Neither the Republican Party nor the Green Party ran a mayoral candidate this year; the Greens’ chairman openly supported Democrat DeStefano. The Republicans ran just two active candidates for alderman—in a city with 30 aldermen. The Greens ran one. He lost.

All interviewed agreed that the resulting low turnout hurts the city.

When so few people elect their leaders, observed New Haven State Sen. Toni Harp, “the people who are governing don’t necessarily reflect the people in the community. Not enough of the people in the community have given them a mandate to move forward and to govern.”

“It’s better to govern” with a popular mandate, Harp argued. “It’s not so autocratic.”

While they agreed on the problem, she and others interviewed offered different takes on how to solve the problem.

Suggested Solutions

• Four-Year Terms. New Haven’s mayor and aldermen run every two years. Mayor DeStefano suggested that the city “explore” four-year terms instead. That might “invest” people more in races and turn out more voters, he said. “There’s more at stake.”

Republican Town Chairman Rick Elser argued against that idea. “If people aren’t engaged, that just gives them a longer period to not be engaged in. If you have a healthy democracy working in the city, there’s nothing wrong with having to present yourself to the city every two years and tell what you’ve done right and wrong and why you should stay in office. That’s a basic check and balance.”

• Open Primaries. Elser instead suggested opening up party primaries in order to involve more people, allowing everyone to vote in primaries, regardless of party affiliation. He noted that the fastest-growing group of voters in town don’t belong to parties. The city has 44,469 registered Democrats—and only 2,593 registered Republicans. It has 16,559 unaffiliated voters and 368 listed as “other” (such as Greens). Open primaries would draw in those voters, especially younger people on whom established parties have “lost their grip.”

• Nonpartisan Elections. Some cities have all candidates petition their way onto ballots with no parties represented. In an editorial this week, the Yale Daily News argued that New Haven should follow suit. (Read it here.)

• Proportional Representation. Green Party Chair Charlie Pillsbury suggested instead that New Haven change its elections system to strengthen opposition parties with opposing ideas. He advocated “proportional representation,” which can take several forms. It can (as in Hartford) guarantee a number of seats in the legislature (city council), for instance. Pillsbury advocated having mayoral candidates run on party slates; their parties would get seats on the Board of Aldermen based on their ticket-leaders’ vote totals. If a mayoral candidate gets 10 percent of the vote, he or she doesn’t serve in office, but the party gets 10 percent of the seats on the board. Pillsbury said that would give people more of a reason to vote; their ideas would have a better chance of being represented in government than under a winner-take-all system. He said that system has worked well in cities like Cambridge and, on a larger scale, countries like Germany.

“Most modern democracies use proportional representation,” Pillsbury said. “It is a way to make sure minority voices are included in the civic discourse. People are motivated to work for their candidates, work for their parties. With a winner-take-all system, you’re left with Soviet-style elections” dominated by one entrenched party.

• More Campaign Money For Challengers. New Haven has a new system offering matching public money to mayoral candidates who raise a minimum of money from small contributors. That was designed to promote more challengers to mount credible campaigns. Instead, incumbent DeStefano was the only candidate to bother pursuing matching money this year.

Rather than ditch public financing, Sen. Harp suggested, the system statewide should make it easier for minor-party candidates to qualify. Connecticut has a new public-financing law, but a federal judge struck it down because it favored Democrats and Republicans (who wrote it). Harp called for fixing it; that would have an impact on even-numbered-year elections in New Haven, when candidates run for state representative and senator. (In other words, she’d potentially have more opposition.)

• More Serious Opponents? New Haven technically had three candidates on the ballot opposing Mayor DeStefano this year. Combined, they received a total of 26 percent of the vote. Each petitioned his or her way on. (They needed just 122 signatures apiece.) None raised money. None formed campaign organizations. None held press conferences. None issued position statements. In the one campaign debate, several replied that they hadn’t formed positions on some of the major issues facing the city.

That prompted New Haven State Rep. Gary Holder-Winfield (pictured) to blog a plea for more serious opposition. (Read about that in this article.)

In a conversation Wednesday, Holder-winfield wondered aloud whether potential candidates “who have the ability to run the city don’t want to run the city. The current state of the schools—that’s a huge problem. That’s a headache I think a lot of people don’t want to take on. How to develop the city; that is an issue I’m not sure a lot of people know how to tackle. Crime in certain neighborhoods ... Those things if you’re a serious contender, you should be looking at. You may not want to take on that piece.”

If serious opponents don’t run for office, Holder-Winfield argued, they deprive the city of not just a debate, but also needed “succession planning.” Even if they lose, they establish themselves as candidates in future elections.

“DeStefano may be able to win. But he’s not going to be there forever. There needs to be a viable candidate at some point.”

Some previous stories from this campaign:

• DeStefano Wins 74% Of Vote
• Goldfield: I’ll Be Back
• DeStefano: School Reform Wins
• They Got Class Credit—& A Real-Life Win
• Next Term Will Determine Mayor’s Legacy
• What Would It Take To Vote GOP?
• 1 Mob, 4 Views
• Politicians Break The News
• Mayor Launches “School Change” Campaign
• Mom’s Not Saying
• Lee Won’t Waste Time Debating
• Race Pits Shoestring vs. Shoe Leather
• Grudge Match In Morris Cove
• Open, Or Close, A Gate To Schoolkids?
• Campaign $$ Seeds Races
• Elicker Swears Off Mayor’s Money
• Candidates Split On Schools
• Greens’ Leaders Split On Strategy
• Brison Calls For Noise Barriers
• Lone Green Alderman Faces Challenge

Comments

posted by: jeffreykerekes on November 5, 2009 1:50pm

What about preferential voting where you vote for your first, second, third choice (etc..). If your first choice doesn’t have enough votes to win, the vote goes to the second choice, etc… until there is a winner. This is a good system to include third party candidates. People can vote for someone without feeling like you are wasting your vote. For instance, people who voted for Nader, could have had their votes go to Gore which may have changed the course of history in America.

posted by: Ka Ching on November 5, 2009 2:01pm

Fewer aldermanic seats: Having between 7 and 15 alders rather than 30 would make these seats more desirable (because you would have more influence and could get more done if elected) and would attract more talented folks to the job. These races would always be contested and would draw out more voters.

posted by: Harry David on November 5, 2009 2:34pm

As with national elections, a key element for low voter turnout is the perceived futility of voting for candidates. This perception is due to the reality most voters face—- incumbents just stay on and on and on, become entrenched, use their patronage power to secure their voter base, quash all opposition and make it extremely difficult for qualified candidates to have a level playing field.

Some have proposed term limits as the solution to this problem but this runs into the less than democratic nature of such denial of additional terms. The people should have a chance to vote for a good candidate no matter how many terms.

There is no easy answer. The Board of Aldermen have become rubber stamps and provide no checks and balance for administration policy. Fiscal irresponsibility can continue unchecked for years, with debt piling up, unfunded liabilities compounding and all this is accompanied by vociferous declarations that there will be “no Tax increases”.

Such statements are not credible and their constant repetition generates voter cynicism.

Give me a candidate slate that is qualified, has a reasonable chance of unseating an incumbent and I will be very keen to go to the polls.

On a national scale this problem is compounded by district gerrymandering. This means that incumbents “choose” their voters by drawing district lines that guarantee reelection. Reelection rates of 90+% are not uncommon for House seats with the only real horse race occuring when an incumbent retires or moves on to higher office.

Harry

posted by: Jay on November 5, 2009 2:47pm

I think the political climate has changed so that most sane people would not want to serve in public office. A few politicians are very committed to public service; most are just egotistical or self seeking opportunists.
This paper has contributed to the decline- the libel and character assasination posted by commentators here has turned the stomach of some able public servants who left public life rather than be subjected to abuse. When was the last time that we thanked our office holders for their hard work and dedication?
If we made holding public office more attractive, maybe we would attract more candidates!

posted by: ROBN on November 5, 2009 3:31pm

Professionalize the Board of Alderman with a decent salary for each member so that qualified candidates are willing to run (and are able to support their family at the same time.)

Instant runoff voting (same as what KERKES mentioned)...allow first second and third choice so that votes can aggregate toward quality long-shot candidates.

posted by: cedarhillresident on November 5, 2009 3:51pm

I have a question what would it take to make any of the above happen????

posted by: Moti Sandman on November 5, 2009 5:33pm

CHR

Charter Change…

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on November 5, 2009 6:28pm

jeffreykerekes

What about preferential voting where you vote for your first, second, third choice (etc..). If your first choice doesn’t have enough votes to win, the vote goes to the second choice, etc… until there is a winner.

in the final count 2 candidates have an equal number of votes the matter is referred by the Electoral Commissioner to the Court of Disputed Returns where the Court may determine the validity of disputed ballot-papers or, in the event of this action not resolving the dead-lock, order a fresh election.

The problem with this sytem is it is still control by the machine.

http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/apps/news/?sectionID=40&pageID=32
Proportional Representation is better. The process of electing candidates to the Legislative Council using a Proportional Representation (PR) system is probably the least understood method of vote counting. The principle behind this method is that as a basis for democratic government, we should have electoral systems that:

offer voters a wide choice of candidates

give as many voters as possible the representatives that they want

give seats to parties or other organised groups as nearly as possible in proportion to their support among the voters

PR was introduced as the voting system for the Legislative Council in 1973 (when the whole of the State became one upper house electoral district) and first used in the 1975 election.

Unlike House of Assembly elections in which candidates need to obtain more than 50% of the votes to be elected, Legislative Council candidates must gain a quota of the formal votes.
Notice it is based on quota,Not some Electoral Commissioner who could be paid off.

http://www.ecsa.sa.gov.au/apps/news/?sectionID=40&pageID=35

Harry David

If term limits is less than a democratic nature.
Then why does it work for the president of the united states.

posted by: City Hall Watch on November 5, 2009 7:34pm

Consider this to drive voter turnout:
1. Registrar of voters and City Hall leadership have to want higher turnout
2. Decrease number of alders to 5 and pay them $75K a year plus benefits. They will have to represent diverse interests of citizens and they will be able to dedicate full time attention to alder duties and citizen needs. It will also mean they have to be responsive and responsible.
3. Cut down number of committees.
4. Increase alder power.
5. All primaries should be open, not closed.

posted by: AndersonScooper on November 5, 2009 7:47pm

Hey, I voted.

But it was probably the stupidest thing I’ve done this fall, with no one running against my alderwoman Bitsie Clark, and no one of substance running against the mayor.

However the dog enjoyed the walk to 200 Orange.

The current system stinks. Way too many aldermen. Shrink the BOA. Ten geographical alders, and five at large.

posted by: Bill Saunders on November 5, 2009 11:56pm

I will contend that the real voter turnout was higher than the 17.6% (oh, contrary me), because there are less REAL voters.

I know that there are several people registered to to my home, all DEMOCRATS, who are long out of the area. One is a grad student that lived in my home in 1989 (before I even owned it). One is my ex-wife (she split in 1999). I personally tried to purge these names (along with others) from the rolls, only to to rebuffed by the registrar, and ultimately lost interest (which is one of the intended consequences of a tight-fisted bureaucracy). I am sure that my house isn’t an anomaly, the poorer the neighborhood, the better.

Does the Democratic Party receive State or Federal Funding based on Registered Democrats??

If so, using this model, a savvy politician can keep his funding high (THE REAL GOAL), while minimizing voter interest—the best of both worlds!

Some critics may disagree.

posted by: streever on November 6, 2009 10:01am

Bill—it definitely doesn’t work that way! It’s a mess, but not an intentional one. Fair theory though—imagine how frustrating it was for those of us working campaigns to have dozens of false registrations on a street. I would applaud any measure that fixed that.

I love the idea of reducing the BOA to a smaller number (7 works—even 10) and making it a serious salary.

the only issue is that some neighborhoods may get left behind. But as long as we have smart people paying attention I think we can avoid that.

posted by: Leah Pillsbury on November 6, 2009 10:35am

In Philadelphia the turnout was even lower - at about 12% - although it wasn’t a Mayoral race. As a one party town (7 to 1 registration in favor of Democrats) Philadelphia has similar issues as New Haven in creating competitive elections. It didn’t help that the city’s largest transit union went on strike at 3am on Election Day, leaving Philadelphians without buses, trolley’s or subways. Check out this Inquirer article: Voters sit out in force, giving reasons aplenty.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on November 6, 2009 10:40am

City Hall Watch

Consider this to drive voter turnout.

How about Same Day Voter Registration.

http://www.lwvtexas.org/VotingProcedures/Voting Proc. F&I- Elec.DayReg. final.pdf

In fact Voter turnout is much higher in states using Election Day registration than in states that did not.

posted by: Steve Ross, Human on November 6, 2009 10:52am

Jay,

“This paper has contributed to the decline- the libel and character assassination posted by commentators here has turned the stomach of some able public servants who left public life rather than be subjected to abuse.”

If this is at all true, the public servants in question are spineless and shouldn’t be in office in the first place. I’m the first to appeal to cool reason, and I certainly agree that NHI contributors can get their panties in a bunch, but come on….

Bill,

“If so, using this model, a savvy politician can keep his funding high (THE REAL GOAL), while minimizing voter interest—the best of both worlds!”

While my anti-conspiracy-theorist-spidey-sense is tingling, I agree with this comment, and it speaks to exactly why we need charter reform as Sandman indicates. I’m with Threefifths and the PR camp, but either way, something has to be done to allow better and more realistic civic discourse to occur. The more “politically aware” I become, the more I feel like I’m just treading water.

posted by: Bill Saunders on November 6, 2009 11:44am

Streever,

What doesn’t work like what??

posted by: streever on November 6, 2009 2:22pm

Sorry Bill, I meant the group getting funded based on voters. Ward 10 doesn’t get $ for registered voters.

I think the number of registered voters is merely used in determined ward size/boundaries, but I could be wrong. I do know that our ward didn’t get money based on total numbers of voters, or we’d be out registering every possible human being ;-)

posted by: Bill Saunders on November 6, 2009 4:38pm

Streever,

I am not talking about your ward. I am talking THE DEMOCRATIC MACHINE. You need to look outside of your little eastrock box to begin to understand the workings of THE SYSTEM.

The ward boundaries is certainly another issue. It would be just awful to redo them in a real way that represents communities.

Also, just picked up the actual tallies from the Town Clerk. What continues to strike me, year after year, are the unusually high number of absentee ballots in Wards 3 (the Hill), and Ward 22 (Newhallville). Together, the absentee ballots is these two wards account for 30% of the total absentee ballots cast, and represent 2% of the total vote.

Where are these people??
Are they hanging out with the five registered voters that don’t live at my house?

My advice to all you alchemists out there: Look to the anomalies to fully understand workings of the octopus. There are many layers to this political onion.

That is not conspiracy theory.
It is the nature of systems.

posted by: Bill Saunders on November 7, 2009 4:17pm

Now, to bring light into a more concrete realm…..

The only thing that drives voter turnout during our local elections is an aldermanic race.

You don’t need less wards, preferential voting, or some other reinvention of an unbroken wheel, you need more people willing to serve the community and challenge the status quo.

Engaging the system through real action yields genuine results.

posted by: Bruce on November 9, 2009 10:14am

Bill, I totally agree. New Haven need more candidates. And either non-partisan local races or stronger party competition. Decreasing the number of alders would only eliminate non-democratic participation in the board. I don’t know if you have ever watched the Dems in act of re-districting, but it is shamelessly self-serving.

posted by: Bruce on November 9, 2009 11:51am

I meant to say “non-Democrat”.

New Haven Independent

New Haven Independent Login Form