Multi-partisan city elections, not non-partisan
My latest column in Urban Tulsa Weekly, which was filed on Monday, before the election, recommends switching city elections from the current primary/general structure to a multi-partisan instant-runoff election. Note that I said multi-partisan, not non-partisan. (I don't write the headlines or cutlines for my stories.) My column explains the distinction and how my proposal gives voters more choice and more information than either the current system or a non-partisan system.
Subscribe to this blog's feed:
Couldn't the number of PAC endorsements become extremely lengthy for a ballot?
IRV in Party Primaries seemed a good idea. I'm not so sure about this one.
Convience me.
Your IRV propsal has a lot of merit and deserves serious discussion/consideration. I believe, when provided with a factual understanding of the issues and the players involved, the electorate will collectively make wise choices.
XonOFF, I didn't get into all the practical details. There would have to be some sort of word limit or character limit for each candidate. Each PAC might register an authorized abbreviation or short name along with their list of endorsements, e.g., "The following candidates are authorized to use 'Homeowners for Fair Zoning' or the abbreviation 'HFFZ' on the city ballot." This is similar to the way party nominations are handled in parliamentary democracies like the UK.
Let me know what your other objections/concerns are, and I'll try to answer them.