The St Pete Beach City Commission deals with a wide range of issues. Important and wide ranging issues such as comprehensive plans, municipal budgets, and taxation. And, not so important or wide ranging issues such as salvaging old city equipment, red light cameras, trimming trees, and adding more no parking signs
Now we have an issue that I think is more important than it looks at first blush:
An ordinance to eliminate runoff elections in St Pete Beach.
It might save a bit of money. A runoff like we just had for the Mayor race cost us roughly an extra $14K. It stretched the election period out weeks and cost the candidates more money, too. It just seems more efficient to use a simple majority. By far, most little cities around us don’t do runoffs.
These are all reasons that I thought weighed in favor of eliminating runoffs.
Then, I thought some more. I’ve learned that the important part of this job is always, think some more.
Please read this thoroughly and thoughtfully. Read it to somebody you trust and discuss it.
Why are there runoffs? Call them Primaries if you want to and if they happen frequently. I think they exist to encourage participation in the process and I think that is a good thing.
Take our last Mayoral election. We had an incumbent, a very strong pro-redevelopment guy, a guy who leaned toward the middle and a gentleman who I would assess as being less than pro-redevelopment; a spectrum of choices, if you will.
I believe what made these candidates foresee a viable chance of winning for themselves was the chance that they could get into a runoff with one other candidate and that movement of the losing candidates supporters to themselves could result in a win.
If we had not been doing runoffs do you think that all four candidates would have run with the idea they could beat, right out of the blocks, the incumbent?
Okay, let me give you another example. In less than three years we are going to have another Mayoral race. For the sake of argument let’s just say that the current Mayor runs again. Let’s just speculate that I might run because I’d feel I finally had enough experience and knowledge. And, let’s speculate that an anti-redevelopment candidate runs.
You can go back and check the voting statistics as I have done and you will find that on issues like Amendment 4, on our recent votes to repeal our requirement to vote on Comp Plans and on our recent vote to repeal the requirement that voters need to approve development code changes with regard to building heights the pro-redevelopment percentage ranges from the low sixties to the low fifties; 61% to 51%.
Now apply this to the above scenario. In my humble opinion, the candidates would be a very, very pro-redevelopment candidate (VPG+), a very pro-redevelopment candidate (VPG) and an Anti-redevelopment candidate (APG).
To simplify; Sixty Two percent (62%) of the voters vote pro-redevelopment and Thirty Eight percent (38%) do not.
So the Mayor (VPG+) and I (VPG) split 62% and the Anti-redevelopment candidate (APG) gets 38%.
Right now, under our current ordinances a runoff would be required and let’s say the Mayor and the non-pro-redevelopment candidate are the two candidates still standing for round two.
Pro-redevelopment voters (62%) vote for the Mayor and 38% (Anti-redevelopment) do not. Mayor stays in office.
IF THIS NEW ORDINANCE ELIMINATING RUNOFFS PASSES, picture this:
The Mayor and I split the 62% pro-redevelopment vote, getting 31% each. The Anti-redevelopment candidate gets 38% and wins!!! 38% beats a split 62% of the voters’ sentiment straight out with no runoff.
The new Mayor could be Anti-redevelopment even though 62% of the voters voted for a pro-redevelopment candidate.
Eliminating runoffs is a bad idea that could easily nullify the will of the majority.
Let’s walk through it from the voter’s perspective.
Who should I vote for?
The Mayor? He is very, very pro-redevelopment and I’m for redevelopment but, wow!
Parent? He’s for redevelopment too, I think, usually, but he talks too much.
The Anti-redevelopment candidate? No, we tried that and it stagnated our city for years.
I am going to vote for the Mayor or Parent, I’ll flip a coin; they’re both for redevelopment.
{FLIP} WAIT! What happened? Mayor 31%, Parent 31%, Anti-guy 38% and WINS !!! ???
I, along with 62% of the voters voted for a redevelopment candidate but our new Mayor is clearly Anti-redevelopment! Because they eliminated runoffs.
If we still had runoffs the Anti-redevelopment candidate with 38% of the support would be in it against the Mayor with roughly 31% support in the first round rising to 62% support in the second round. And the will of the majority of voters would be heard.
So eliminating runoffs might save us a few bucks, it might make things more efficient and quicker, it might bring us in line with surrounding cities…………..
BUT
It might dissuade potential candidates from running and it might allow the minority opinion to easily win over the majority opinion.
I think participation trumps the money issues. Municipal level government NEEDS participation to be viable.
I think taking a little extra time to get the will of the people right trumps a ridiculously bogus outcome.
I think the will of the majority of the people trumps conforming to convention. This is St Pete Beach, we are unique, and we are who we are.
I said it before; local government is supposed to be messy. But it is supposed to encourage participation and listen to the majority.
If this makes sense to you, or if you have questions, send your commissioner, or the Mayor, an email or give them a call.
You can email me at J.parent@StPeteBeach.com and you can call my cell phone at +1 727 542 7097. You can email other commissioners at: a.halpern@stpetebeach.com or b.garnett@stpetebeach.com or m.shavlan@stpetebeach.com or mayor@stpetebeach.com
Think this through, discuss it with someone you trust, and then decide how YOU feel about the possibility of the minority winning over the MAJORITY. Tell your commissioner.
|