@18 Sabra’s Husband :-)

Nonpartisan elections aren’t a sly partisan workaround, they are an acknowledgment of partisan defeat. They are also an acknowledgment of the idea that with the demise of the party system in our community, it is time to move beyond party-based elections. It’s a bit like keeping the Rotten Burroughs of 19th century England. When the form no longer serves the substance, it may be time to reconsider the form.

Having become a one-party town, what civic purpose is served by holding the definitive local election in August, as a partisan primary? I have not yet heard an answer to this question that struck me as coherent.

My best to the Mrs., even though she, too, has not presented me with a coherent argument on this topic.

The New Yorker article explains at length how IRV can lead to “topsy- turvy” elections. “Whether a candidate who gets through the first round of counting will ultimately be elected may depend on which of his rivals he has to face in subsequent rounds, and some votes for a weaker challenger may do a candidate more good than a vote for that candidate himself. In short, a candidate may lose if certain voters back him, and would have won if they hadn’t. ” The article cites a mathematical study that estimates this could happen in one of every five IRV contests with three candidates.

Burlington, VT had IRV and eliminated it after a mayoral election went topsy-turvy. (The short way of explaining that is that everyone’s last choice got elected.) Of course, Ann Arbor also had IRV for one election. It was eliminated by petition after Al Wheeler won in a three-way race by being the second preference for many. I have reviewed the history and some more of these questions here. [link]

I should make it clear that I am not campaigning to change our electoral method. I’m just expressing some preferences.

Also, IRV doesn’t work with the rest of the electoral system as it is set up. This has been explained in the past by the county clerk, Larry Kestenbaum. The ballots and vote counting for other races are not compatible. Nonpartisan voting is – the contest simply moves to a different section of the ballot.

Of course, this immediately leads to calls for instant runoff, but that is even worse – see this long article from the New Yorker. [link]

What I find attractive about the non-partisan idea is not the number of people voting in each election, but the opportunity for a runoff between the two major vote-getters, and the extended discussion of issues that our present do-or-die August primary system does not allow in most cases, especially in even years.

But the fortunes of political war sometimes result in the losing side staying on the losing side. Trying to manipulate the electoral system is not going to help turn losers into winners.

Dave, it’s possible that you have twinkle in your eye when you call your self “pro-choice” in this context, but the non-viability of ANY second party here in Ann Arbor, the central importance of an intra-party election removes choice from lots of people.

Its possible that someone’s views on foreign policy or military spending, or other national partisan issues is has a link to their position on “Potholes vs. ‘Art’”, snow removal, or openness in local government, but looking at our council, the connection is not obvious to me.

There is a reason than only three cities in Michigan still have partisan municipal elections.

Why take away the choice to run as a partisan candidate? I’m pro-choice.