Multi-partisan city elections, not non-partisan

| | Comments (3)

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.


XonOFF said:

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.

Twatch Author Profile Page said:

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.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Michael Bates published on April 5, 2006 12:16 PM.

End of the line was the previous entry in this blog.

DoubleShot across the bow is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed:
[What is this?]