Over 250 Austin Activists Support November Elections

What a sad week for good government in Austin (2.00 / 1)

I've lived here since 1992 and while I've been angry, bemused, and frustrated at times (and satisfied at many others) I don't remember a time when I was this disappointed in the Austin City Council.

Think about what happened here: a rush job to ensure that we spent more so that less people would vote in City Council elections, without allowing much time for dissent to register or to consider the arguments that the public might make.  

Oh sure, we are allowed extended due diligence on racetracks in Elroy and water treatment plants and long range neighborhood plans, but elections, you know, the central act of participatory democracy, has to be wrapped up right now this week because a county vendor says so (or something).

And while hundreds or even thousands of us from across the spectrum went to meetings and tweeted and signed letters they rushed through this with nary a peep as to why.

As I suggested on the other thread, it looked like a fait accompli on Tuesday because it WAS a fait accompli.

Is that the Austin we want? Is that respecting citizens?

Is this week what any of us ever meant to vote for?

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 22:00:26 PM UTC

Please list the cities that hold municipal elections in November of general election years (0.00 / 0)

1. Which cities in Texas or other states hold their municipal elections in November of general election years? Not Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Fort Worth, El Paso, McAllen, Laredo. Not New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Portland, Madison,  Seattle, or New Orleans. Might there not be valid public policy reasons why  nearly all cities have historically chosen not to hold their municipal elections at the same time that public attention is focused on electing a president, Members of Congress, U.S. Senators, state legislators, and state constitutional officials? Are all of these Democratic strongholds guilty of suppressing voter turnout?

2. As to your posted list of 250 supporters of your position on this issue, whose kidding who? That list consists overwhelmingly of publicly listed supporters of Randi Shade. If anyone counted more than a very small handful of Tovo  supporters, please call them to the attention of the rest of us.

                Dave Shapiro  

---

by: Dave Shapiro @ Fri Oct 07, 2011 at 23:21:31 PM UTC

I don't understand your point. (3.00 / 1)

I'm baffled as to the significance of number two. Can you explain the it? I didn't understand it when Bunch said it and I don't now.

But the Chronical twitter noted Abell, Flores, Hurta, Mauro, Saldana, Thomas, Wicce as Tovo supporters, whatever that is supposed to mean, and if I am wrong they may correct me, because I don't want to call anybody out, and I don't think the question is important.

How do you feel about November vs may elections, Dave? Dare I presume you prefer May?

More to the point, I'm more concerned about the process and regard for the public in this move.  Do you think it was appropriate to attempt to hold a second reading during a work session even after it was already on the agenda for thursday, and then to hold a special called session for today for final reading?

What was so important about this that it had to be done this week?  

---

by: Rahm McDaniel @ Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 00:51:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Small correction. (2.67 / 3)

BOR's own Michael Hurta was a Shade supporter and worked for her.  There's another Michael Huerta who backed Tovo.  They probably checked Tovo's public supporter list.

This issue isn't and shouldn't be about rehashing Shade vs. Tovo, as Dave is eager to do.

I was leaning strongly towards supporting a November date, but seeing a bunch of people that I trust and respect support November and almost nobody that I know pushing for May, as well as some solid reasoning from Katherine, has pushed me into the undecided camp.

I'm still concerned about all the other races taking away a lot of the attention and focus that council races can more easily obtain in May because they don't have to compete with state and national race's for voter's attention, media time, activist attention, campaign staff, etc.  

But on the flip side having it in November may encourage some voters to start paying attention to city issues, and the voting would better represent Austin as a whole.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 04:44:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Many of us prefer odd-year November for the long run (0.00 / 0)

But I just don't understand keeping it in May. At all. Considering this year's more-than-usual-cost and thed ridiculous election schedule that would occur with primary runoffs -- I have trouble seeing a reason for keeping it in May is anything but self-serving. Even if, for one year, an even-yeared November is the only option left.

Because we can't move the May 2012 elections to November 2011 or November 2013. But I signed this letter, and others did, too, that would like November odd-year elections. And I can make a good argument on how that improves democracy in a way I cannot argue that keeping May elections hold within our values of democracy at all.

"suppressing turnout" is strong language that I'm not sure I would necessarily use, but the language is not used just becaues May elections have much less turnout than even-yeared November elections. But it does has to do with the fact that the low turnout in May elections is the only reason being argued for keeping it in May.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 17:51:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

City issues need attention (2.00 / 1)

I understand that folks like the Mayor and Mike Martinez saw Randi Shade lose and, knowing that their records are virtually identical, fear city voters will oust them, too, in next year's elections. But that's not enough for them and their supporters to justify moving city elections. Just because the electorate doesn't like your policies doesn't mean you should go shopping for a new one.

City issues already get scarce attention and frankly local press coverage is goddawful. Having a separate city election means city issues actually get debated instead of being swamped by the media tide in a presidential campaign.

This move would only benefit the insider types who already have influence, make city issues inconsequential to who is elected to city council, and make it harder for non-establishment candidates to run and win. It's a terrible idea promoted by short-sighted and/or self-interested people.

Keep it in May.

---

by: Gritsforbreakfast @ Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 14:45:48 PM UTC

information market unlikely to be worse (3.00 / 1)

Given past election turnouts, May 2012 turnout will be 30-40k.  November turnout will be 300-400k.

If the local broadcast news and print journalism is already 'godawful', why is it becoming 'godawful-er' not worth expanding the number of people engaging the already 'godawful' coverage?

If anything, it seems a bigger potential readership/viewership for local coverage provides financial upside to local media for improving coverage.

If May elections allow for 'debate', but coverage is poor, then it seems quality coverage is not necessary for quality debate. Practically speaking, the highly engaged activists and organized groups (ANC, NAACP, environmentalists, etc.) are the ones that create the issues, forums, and materials that drive the 'debate'. If there's 270k more people who might be interested in the information from said debate, it seems to me that local journalism might decide to improve coverage; in any event, it's not going to get worse.

Why would the existing May voting base stop caring about local issues? As a May voter, I can tell you that I am going to remain pretty interested in what the local candidates say at forums, on the Austin Post/blog interviews, in the Sierra Club newsletter, in the ANC discussion board, etc. Am I the only May voter that will act this way? And why would these components of the information marketplace fade in importance if 270k more people are potentially looking for information? If the May base remains interested, then the scale needed for existing forums, organizations, etc. stays in place. Thus, info marketplace does not worsen.

From your comment, I am not certain which 'insider types' precisely would benefit or what non-establishment candidates have experienced success of late. One person's nefarious 'insider' is another person's visionary pragmatist. I sure might want certain 'insiders' with an anti-sprawl, social democratic agenda to do better, if by 'better' we mean have their policy preferences enacted by the voting choices of a broader electorate.

In any event, it seems status quo May elections are already very poor in generating a diversity of perspectives, are not exactly unfriendly to money, and feature an electorate that should trouble any person concerned about basic democratic legitimacy, as well as social justice.

So, what makes the May electorate so special that they are the optimal group of people to decide municipal public policy?

And is every May voter really that well-informed? I mean, the same voting base sure seems to produce a lot of 4-3 councils! Could it be that the November electorate will at worst just be equally incoherent as the May one?

Finally, if lack of information is the standard, why not just come out and have a test of voter knowledge at the polling place?

I think we should avoid designing our election systems in such a way as to knowingly, meaningfully exclude hundreds of thousands of people out of concerns that they won't know how to properly handle democracy.  

www.keepaustinwonky.wordpress.com + www.twitter.com/juliogatx

---

by: Julio Gonzalez Altamirano @ Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 16:24:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Naivete (2.00 / 1)

Your comments reflect a naivete about how elections and the media operate in the real world. Presidential races suck up all the oxygen in the room and downballot races don't get any attention at all. There are too many races and local media already can't cover them all. That's just the reality of politics, whatever you think "should" be the case in some fantasy world.

May elections allow more thorough vetting of city issues because they are the only thing for media and voters to focus on.

As for "what makes the May electorate so special that they are the optimal group of people to decide municipal public policy," they're the ones who care enough to show up and vote in municipal election and years of polling demonstrate they are FAR more informed about local issues than the folks who show up in presidential races.

If you think "May elections are already very poor in generating a diversity of perspectives," then you haven't thought through the impact of moving to November very deeply yet. Because outsider candidates would have to raise much more money to get their message out, November elections would make for narrower (establishment-only) points of view on council, not increase diversity. At least now, outsider candidates stand a fighting chance.

We don't need a "test" at the polling place. We have one now: People who care about city government show up to vote. Those who pay no attention to municipal politics self-select out. Nobody is disenfranchised or "excluded," except via their own choices. Just as freedom of religion includes the right not to believe, electoral democracy includes the right not to participate. If people care, they show up. If they don't, that's their right.

Anyway, all this is a smoke screen: As said above, the driving force behind this is the faction on council who's voting record is virtually identical to Randi Shade and who now fear they'll be ousted next year, so is seeking a friendlier (less-informed, more easily manipulated) electorate where they think they stand a better chance. The rest IMO is just spin.

---

by: Gritsforbreakfast @ Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 18:57:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is Wells Dunbar getting sent to New Hampshire? (0.00 / 0)

At least in the local media landscape, I'd be surprised if the Statesman and Chronicle reporters that do local coverage would significantly alter the types of stories they are writing. We've had federal elections before, and local print, online and broadcast continued to provide local coverage.

I'd agree with you that broader electorates tend to require more money (a great argument for single-member districts, btw). However, a truly non-establishment candidate (e.g. pro-density, more focused on economic issues, no relationship to public sector unions) probably has a better shot with the new 270k-300k voters coming into the fold and no money than taking on the status quo electorate, against well-funded establishment candidates, still with no money.  Why is establishment money going to give to a non-establishment candidate? If anti-establishment candidates are not going going to have money, then it's best they try and ride the November demographics.

I am not sure that individual turnout is about 'caring'; and I feel uncomfortable with designing public institutions so as to punish people who were afforded limited social capital at birth by making it purposefully harder for them to get some agency.  Dufflo, Banerjee, and Spears have all done very interesting research illuminating that the materially poor face so many tough choices, that their cognitive abilities are often depleted and can't handle what some of us might see as 'basic' responsibilities. Some of our neighbors might not be able to care in as many elections as us because of their complex lives.  If anything, we know that at least +200k more Austinites actually care enough to vote at some point - so maybe it's not their personal level of care but the electoral design that's the problem.

True, some folks advocating November are motivated by self-serving desire to pick the best game field for them.  Doesn't mean MY arguments are wrong just because I agree with them on this one. Further, I've repeatedly advocated coordinated elections, true public financing of campaigns, SMD, mail voting, and a more activist AISD and Travis County on civic education - so my personal commitment to a broader democratic reform agenda is longstanding and independent of the council politics du jour.


www.keepaustinwonky.wordpress.com + www.twitter.com/juliogatx

---

by: Julio Gonzalez Altamirano @ Sat Oct 08, 2011 at 21:02:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well-intentioned, but utterly and profoundly wrong (2.00 / 1)

Jose, I appreciate the thoughtful reply, but you're just wrong. The Statesman and Chron focused FAR more attention on the contested Shade/Tovo election this year than they ever have any single local race in November. It's just true. Dig into their archives and do word counts of the relevant coverage for various races if you don't believe me.

As for "anti-establishment candidates" trying to "ride the November demographics," that too is pure fantasy. The establishment types would be the only ones who could get their message out, especially with (damnable, ill-conceived) $350 campaign limits in city elections. That's why the Lee Leffingwells, Mark Nathans and Mike Blizzards of the world want this so bad.

Finally, I have no idea what you're talking about when you say May elections "punish people who were afforded limited social capital at birth." People vote in their neighborhood precincts and can friggin' walk to the polls if need be. (I frequently do in Pct 126, in fact.) You're the one belittling the "cognitive abilities" of the poor, then somehow accuse others of elitism. IMO that's just a red herring.

I appreciate you acknowledging (since most advocates on the issue adamantly deny it) that "some folks advocating November are motivated by self-serving desire to pick the best game field for them." You're right that THAT doesn't make your arguments wrong. However, your arguments are wrong nonetheless.

---

by: Gritsforbreakfast @ Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 00:51:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

'Scuse me, Julio, not Jose (0.00 / 0)

Apologies for getting your name wrong above. My bad.

---

by: Gritsforbreakfast @ Sun Oct 09, 2011 at 01:07:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

just getting caught up (0.00 / 0)

on all of my BOR reading, but have followed this issue somewhat through twitter.

what a horrible waste of time and money.

if anyone is working on challenges to these folks that voted "for", count me in.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Fri Oct 14, 2011 at 15:28:28 PM UTC