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
What about <b>preferential voting</b> 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.