July
31st,
2008 - The Beacon News
Why Aurora needs a
mayoral primary
State law now allows cities to opt out of holding a primary
election in cases where there are four or fewer candidates
running. Common sense dictates that if there are more than
two candidates in Aurora's nonpartisan mayoral election that
a primary is both desirable and necessary.
Omitting the primary election would certainly save money,
but is this fair?
Some residents might be glad about the cost savings, while
others might be happy due to how they believe it would affect
their candidate of choice in next spring's election. However,
we must look at this change for what it is. It is a change
in the way votes are counted and whether your vote will matter.
This change is not about money or the effect on your candidate,
it is about the future of our votes. Even though the law
gives this option, we need to look ahead to what this means
for all future elections.
Aurora's mayor holds an important position in city government,
being both the top elected official and in charge of day-to-day
operations. This is quite different from the mayor's position
in a city with a hired city manager to oversee the city's
ongoing business.
The Aurora Election Commission should not wait until December
to make a decision based on how many candidates have filed
petitions. Rather, the commission should decide once and
for all that anytime there are three or more candidates for
a mayoral election then a primary is necessary and will be
held.
With our established system of voting, the winner of the
general election must win more than 50 percent of the vote.
We are assured this winner has received the true majority
of the voting public. With the elimination of the primary,
there is no such assurance. If there are four candidates,
the winner only needs to get more than 25 percent of the
votes. For a position as important as that of mayor, this
does not seem right and should not be acceptable to the voters.
History has shown that a candidate who comes in second in
the primary could win the general election, but this could
never be the case with the elimination of the primary. With
no primary, votes against an incumbent or for change would
be split among various candidates, and some voters would
not have the chance for their vote to be counted in the final
decision.
If it is necessary to change our customary method of electing
a mayor, there is a fair way to eliminate the primary election
and the cost associated with it. That would be to have an
instant run-off election. In this type of election, voters
would rank the candidates in their order of preference. The
candidate with the fewest votes would have his or her votes
redistributed to each voter's next-choice candidate, and
this would be done again if necessary until one candidate
has more than 50 percent of the votes or has the highest
number of votes when only two candidates remain. This voting
system is being used in various places within and outside
of the U.S.
Some arguments in favor of instant runoff voting include
a reduction in cost, a reduction in negative campaigning,
a reduced third-party "spoiler effect," and the
likelihood of increased choices for voters. However, we are
not set up to have this sort of election and there could
be some opposition to this new-for-Aurora type of voting.
We already have the equipment for (our current system) and
know that having a primary and a general election is something
that local voters find acceptable.
The instant runoff voting method is covered extensively
at www.fairvote.org/irv and the site notes some Illinois
legislation to allow instant runoff voting to improve the
voting rights for overseas voters, including those in the
military.
I urge the Aurora Election Commission to either announce
its plans now to hold a primary election whenever there are
more than two candidates, or to set up a system that allows
instant run-off voting. Simply eliminating the primary election
does not serve the best interests of local voters.
SherryTatar@ameritech.net
Return to In The News |
