Local opinion: The damage we do to ourselves

As our city election looms, it is instructive to understand what we are doing with our representative democracy here in the Old Pueblo.

Election policy under our American Experiment should be about the will of the citizenry. Elections should not be about political parties or candidates. Elections should be about gauging the values of the citizenry being governed. Low voter turnout is a sign of a weakened democratic society, and voter disenfranchisement should be shunned as a self-imposed political illness.

This is all cliché in terms of national current events. “Democracy is on the ballot,” we hear daily. If, though, we ask our local elected officials, we get a blank stare. We are bipartisan about support for our weak political system. To them, it seems all a game.

The simplest example of our democratic weakness comes from Ward 5. On Aug. 5, in the middle of a dry/hot summer, we held a primary election. Republicans had opted out. Thus, the primary elected the Council Member. We can blame others, but if elections are for the citizenry, then we have a problem of relevance.

The winner of that contest, held within the ward, netted 2,422 votes out of 4,125 cast. Superficially, this is a 58.7% victory, which amounts to a landslide in American politics. A look behind the curtain tells us that the 4,125 who cast their votes add up to 10.1% of a primary election voting pool that includes Democrats and minor or no-party voters. So, the actual 5.8% victory that considers all available voters reveals a problem of relevance if our representatives are to be, well, representative. This reveals a systemic problem with our elections.

Most who support our “At-Large” election systems state support for all of Tucson’s citizens voting on council seats. In this case, the Ward 5 council seat was elected with 0.8% of the Tucson Electorate.

For Democrats, this is a victory. For Republicans, this is a strategic choice. For the American Experiment, this is a severe loss, as the rest of the city is being disenfranchised under our current “city-wide” scheme.

In Wards 3 and 6, there is a different dynamic. There is a Republican candidate in both wards who ran unopposed in the primary. By not running a candidate in Ward 5, it can be assumed that voter turnout there will lag. The same assumption can be made in the westside’s Ward 1. Republican candidates in 3 and 6 can assume a loss in the wards they seek to represent. When Republicans win in Wards 3 and 6, it is due to a lowered Democratic turnout everywhere west of Wilmot and a good Republican turnout in Wards 2 and 4 on the east side.

So, if Republicans pull off victories in Wards 3 and 6, they will surely do so without ward victories. In 1997, Fred Ronstadt won the Ward 6 race and held office for two terms. All of this without ever winning Ward 6. In 2001, Ward 3 added the Republican Dunbar.

This all comes down to the blank stares that come from our officials when asked about election reform. They know that our system is antiquated and unfair to their opponents. Oddly, that’s a bipartisan agreement historically. Our representatives have believed that elections are about political infrastructure and not about the voters. We can do better, but in terms of our antiquated system, both parties are conservative.

Tucson is a good place for discussing a modern election system if we talk to those in the community. In real terms, Tucson’s democracy starts there. Perhaps this warrants a questioning of our current candidates. Not just what they support, but why. The missing “why” questions in our political debate would probe a candidate’s wisdom. Wisdom is what we should expect from our representatives.

In Tucson, we don’t seek a majority of voters or even the majority of those who vote. We believe, through our systemic rules, that a minority should master the game. The ideals of our experiment demand a fair path toward self-government. We should ask our representatives if they agree and why.