The point of pointing out the inflated voter role number is to make the case that when petition requirements base the number of signatures necessary to put an issue to a vote on a percentage of the registered voters, there is an inherent unfairness to the organizers of the petition drive. This is due to the fact that the number of registered voters is inflated by a factor of 1.5-2.0 (at least in the 1st Ward where I analyzed the voter registration file) the number of people who can actually vote. People who register and then leave the state without notifying the SOS office will remain on the voter roles in theory forever. That scenario happens a lot in Ann Arbor due to the transient student population. There is usually a large up-tick in voter registrations in Presidential election years. The fix to this is simple (but hard to implement), don’t base signature requirements on a percentage of registered voters. Another thing to consider: the inflated registration count understates the true voter turn-out percentage with a long range trend that will magnify the effect to the point that there will eventually be more registered voters than population in the city. I believe we are already at the point where the number of registered voters is about equal to the number of 18+ people in the population. It would be nice if the County Clerk could come up with and publish a deflation factor by ward that would give us a better idea of what the true turn-out is. I estimate it is anywhere from 0.5-0.7.

For the record, I agree completely with you. Purging voter rolls sets a scary precedent. As I wrote, it’s a national problem, but one that seems increasingly surmountable as more and more of our personal data ends up in government databases (Social Security administration records, for instance). I imagine there have been some spirited discussions between the City and County Clerk’s offices on the subject; it’s a thorny problem.

Yes, the high number of out-of-date records does make things like this more difficult, but what are the alternatives? What are their costs? When you start purging the voter roles, you run into problems with valid voters not being on the list.

I would rather err on the side of keeping people on the list rather than disenfranchising people with an aggressive cleanup effort.

Voters would confirm Council’s request or reject it. City staff does a superb job of educating voters when city-initiated funding proposals are brought before us. The School District does, as well. This proposed amendment would entail the continuance of the education of the electorate—in this instance concerning the GO bond proposals. This is nothing new or radical; it’s done year after year for funding proposals for roads, parks and our schools. This proposed amendment would simply add GO Bonds to the list.

The point of the proposed amendment is for voters and government to work in concert with respect to GO Bond issuances as we do in these many other instances.

Getting valid signatures from a requisite number of registered voters is the only way to get such a proposal on the ballot. The problem of the inaccurate voter rolls in our city (inflated by perhaps 20 percent) is a significant one when undertaking citizen-driven petitions or citizen-driven ordinances. It is interfering with the legal avenues open to citizens to participate in government. I suppose someone could sue the City Clerk for not keeping accurate records, but it’s really a national debate on the maintenance of voter rolls. So, yes, it is necessary to find the “real” voters.

the vote is not to confirm council’s judgment but rather to overrule council’s judgment. The problem is that the people who are overruling are less informed.

“That’s the primary goal, so targeting voters is necessary and will get us a higher percentage of valid signers.”

Is it really “necessary”? Seems more like a choice. If that seems like nit picking, consider that someone who sees things from Daniel’s perspective, for example, might argue that it’s “necessary” for council to make GO bond decisions.

I think this argument misses the mark. Even assuming the A2 voting public is be “smart enough,” when it comes to issues like GO debt/bonds, it is not as capable or as educated as the members of the city council.

It is simply not enough to say, “They do it in other cities, so why not here?” Nor is it enough to blindly rely on the false premise that more democracy will always create better outcomes. It doesn’t.

One of the real strengths of representative democracy is that it tasks a select group of informed voters to the most sophisticated issues. Ripping these core issues away from the professionals and dumping them on a (largely apathetic) voting public does not seem wise.