Political rhetoric is heating up in anticipation of a City-wide vote on electoral reforms to include more voters and more candidates in our local elections. Low turnout elections flooded with money have now elected a large roster of local representatives who are eager to preserve that status quo. They now argue against a more inclusive, accessible democracy.
More information is available now on updated websites:
BACKGROUND
Decades ago, our local government included community activists pushing for discussion of truly progressive ideas like rent control, subsidized daycare, increased voter registration, police oversight, and legalization of marijuana. These issues were raised by grassroots candidates who could compete in (and win) elections that were accessible to anyone who could organize local support. The accessibility of our elections— including the University community— led to the election of young student leaders as well as the City’s first and only black Mayor, Dr. Albert Wheeler.
In the last twenty years, low turnout August primary elections have chosen our city leaders when half the town is on vacation and UM students are not yet in town. In the last five years, an explosion of outside money has more than tripled the cost of campaigns for these local offices, making them inaccessible to any candidate without connections to wealth or big money from special interests. A common network of wealth and special interests now drive policy for a unanimous and performative City government: a representative body elected to debate issues of controversy now meets for the purpose of reading pre-written scripts in agreement with one another.
In response to reforms aimed at increasing accessibility and diversity, current elected leaders have pitched a stunning theory: more local participation in our city elections is not a good thing. In this upside-down view of democracy, an educated town like Ann Arbor will suffer greatly with a democracy that includes more voters, candidates, and public debate of ideas.
Defenders of low turnout, big money local elections argue that including more voters and more candidates – more than just those connected to wealth and outside money – will result in a government that is less representative of our local community. They argue that candidates focused on earning local support are likely to be ‘fringe’ and ‘extreme’; anyone in favor of more inclusive elections is somehow pushing a ‘conservative’ agenda. A unanimous government supported by a common network of wealth and special interests postures ‘diversity’; candidates outside of that network of wealth and special interests are a threat to representation and progressivism. Up is down and down is up.
PARTISANSHIP IN ANN ARBOR
In years past, more voters participated in our local elections, choosing among all the candidates running for City offices. Our local elections used to include candidates and elected leaders who were willing to engage in serious debate of shared community goals, acknowledging legitimate differences around preferred strategies to reach them.
To understand what an inclusive and accessible democracy once looked like, see the newspaper page from the Michigan Daily below, illustrating the policy positions of candidates running for City offices in 1993. At that time, candidates competed against each other in spring elections with higher voter turnout than our current August primaries. These elections during the academic year meant that student journalists at the Michigan Daily contributed to our local debate of issues.
Link to page: https://digital.bentley.umich.edu/midaily/mdp.39015071754902/711
From that page, note the policy positions of candidates from three parties:
Democrats
- Deliver basic services at least cost
- More federal money and coordination with the County on housing
- Ensure citizen input on Council decisions
- Maintain natural areas & reduce auto emissions
- Add community representation on the Housing Commission
Republicans
- Delegate responsibility to the City Administrator
- Government should facilitate, not provide housing
- City/university collaboration to meet commuter needs for parking
- Students should participate in Noisy Party Task force
- Decrease factionalism on Council
Libertarian
- Deregulation of zoning to facilitate density
- Too many rules and regulations on business and development
- Transit corridor development to solve the housing problem
- Free market works in most cases
- House the homeless in tents in City parks
“Tisch”
- Bus service from Briarwood mall
- Voucher system for public housing
- Increase recycling services
PROMOTING DEMOCRACY
Demographics of the last twenty years have defined Ann Arbor as a one party town, where the overwhelming majority of residents (over 85%) consistently support Democratic candidates for state and federal office. Many of us are exceedingly grateful to live in our local ‘bubble’, where the spectrum of political difference is a range of far left to left-leaning and moderate perspectives.
Ironically, when Ann Arbor city elections included multiple parties, candidates and elected leaders discussed more of the substance of local policy, rather than waving partisan flags. Current elected leaders now regularly insist that every local controversy be viewed through a partisan lens; every local issue is now an opportunity to peg dissent as “conservative” or “republican” rather than addressing questions and concerns. At this local level, divisive rhetoric around partisanship is most effective among people who do not follow local issues.
If you are reading this newsletter, you are among a subset of our community that can play a role in confronting misinformation designed to manipulate low-information voters. This year we saw the inevitable consequence of big money in our local City elections: a barrier to entry that means no choice for voters. In August primaries, four out of five City Council seats were uncontested. On the upcoming November ballot – when many more voters participate in choosing elected leaders – all five Council seats are uncontested.
Recently, several friends alerted me to a program on Michigan Radio, a discussion of why uncontested political races are a problem. You can listen to the program here:
The Local Impact Of Uncontested Elections
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/12/1198912901/1a-09-12-2024
That program referenced further analysis here:
Can It Be Democracy If Only One Candidate Runs?
https://www.kqed.org/news/12003649/can-it-be-democracy-if-only-one-candidate-runs
Visit the websites below if you would like to offer support for local elections that include more voters and more grassroots candidates: