dean rindy encourges may elections
TRANSCRIPT
8/4/2019 Dean Rindy Encourges May Elections
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dean-rindy-encourges-may-elections 1/3
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: DEAN RINDY
RE: MAY CITY ELECTIONS ARE BETTER FOR THE CITY
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I have worked in elections in this city for 30 years, as well as serving as a political consultant in municipal,state and federal elections in 25 states. These thoughts are based on that experience. As a Democraticpolitical consultant, I might personally benefit from holding the 2012 city election in November, but to be
honest I think that date would be bad for Austin.
Democracy in Austin will be far better served by holding our city elections at the regularly scheduled time in
May. Any additional expense will be well worth it. A November city election in a Presidential year would be
a travesty. Rather than helping democracy, it would subvert it---for several reasons.
A quick summary of objections:
---Many voters will regard it as undemocratic and wrong for incumbent office holders to arbitrarily
extend their term of office without voter approval, and this could become an issue against any Council
Member who votes to do so.
---City issues and candidates would be totally drowned out by national and state campaigns in the
summer and fall of 2012. There would be almost no news coverage of city candidates. Advertising wouldbe far more expensive. City candidates’ messages would be lost in the blizzard of mail and tv ads from better
financed state and federal campaigns. Citizen forums, quite important in city elections, would be
overwhelmed.
---A November 2012 election would be more of an insider’s game, not less. It would hand more powerto a small group of political insiders--- the special interest lobbyists who fund campaigns, and the
political operatives who influence local Democratic and Republican political endorsements. This isinevitable because the election will become vastly more expensive and vastly more partisan.
---A November 2012 city election would mean less democracy, not more so, in spite of drawing far more
voters. The number of voters would be higher; but their chance to be well informed, to hear
meaningful public discussion, to consider alternatives, and to participate in a debate about city issues
8/4/2019 Dean Rindy Encourges May Elections
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dean-rindy-encourges-may-elections 2/3
would be much, much less.
---A November 2012 date would automatically make city campaigns far more expensive, while making it
very difficult to recruit and organize grass roots volunteer efforts. City candidates would have to
compete for attention with scores of other campaigns at every level, trying to reach a vastly larger Presidentialyear electorate, while paying for more expensive TV time and sending mailers to thousands of extra voters.
Field, mail and TV would all become far more expensive, and potential volunteers would be siphoned off by
state and federal races.
---A November election would give incumbents an unfair advantage , even bigger than the one they
have now, since it would become vastly more expensive and far more difficult for challengers to
become known.
A little more explanation:
1. Many voters will think it is wrong to use a mere change in state election schedules as an excuse to
arbitrarily extend incumbents terms of office by half a year---in violation of historic practice and the CityCharter whose spirit you are sworn to uphold. This can be seen as a subversion of voters’ rights and the rule
of law. In America voters are the only persons entitled to make decisions on how long an incumbent remains
in office. It would be surprising if challengers did not make it an issue against any incumbent who voted toextend their own term.
Even Rudy Guiliani, at the height of his popularity as Mayor of New York in the months after 9/11, failed
when he tried to get an agreement to extend his term an extra three months “in order to ease transition in atime of crisis.” He failed in the face of wide spread public criticism that called his move an “extra legal
maneuver.”
2. Staging our city election simultaneously with the national election will wipe out any chance for real debate
and discussion of city issues. There is a physical limit to how much attention voters and news media can give
to politics at one time. By next fall news media and commercial airwaves will be totally dominated by stateand national campaigns. Austin airwaves will be saturated with political advertising costing millions of
dollars. It will be almost impossible for city candidates to compete for news space or to be noticed amidst the
blizzard of competing ads and direct mail at the state and federal level. Think about how hard it is to get news
media attention or to pay for TV time for Council races held in May. In November it will be ten times worseand three times more expensive. City candidates will be competing with Presidential, statewide and county
politics---all in a highly partisan atmosphere. Challengers will face an almost impossible task against
incumbents.
3. The argument has been made that November will be more “democratic” because more people will be
voting. It would be truer to say that more uninformed people will vote, though this would not be the voters’fault. It would be the fault of combining too many elections with too many candidates at too many levels at the
same time. People are not computers with infinite capacity on their hard drives. They can only take so much
input. As a practical matter, it will be impossible for voters who follow the Presidential or state campaigns tobecome adequately informed about city issues during the national election season. For all the reasons
previously mentioned, voters simply will not have sufficient opportunity or time to inform themselves.
Further, in partisan elections most voters use the simple shortcut given by party identification and they choose
Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or Green. But city elections are non-partisan, which makes it far moreimportant to learn about the views and backgrounds of individual candidates. Real democracy depends on
informed citizens who have a chance to educate themselves. In the confused frenzy of November, most
8/4/2019 Dean Rindy Encourges May Elections
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dean-rindy-encourges-may-elections 3/3
voters will hear very little city debate and get very little information on city issues.
4. Some claim that a city election in November, because it draws a larger number of voters, will make it
more open and less of an “insiders’ game.” On the contrary, a November election would hand more
power to an even smaller group of political insiders--- a) the special interest lobbyists who fund
campaigns, and b) the political operatives who influence local Democratic and Republican
endorsements. This is inevitable because the election will become vastly more expensive and vastly more
partisan. The need for extra funding in a race where you have to communicate with thousands of new voters
is obvious. Therefore, special interest funders---lobbyists and their commercial clients--- will inevitably loomeven larger in importance, as will party operatives who normally don’t care about city issues. For a big
majority of voters partisanship will be the main point of reference in their decision making, regardless of
whether they are voting for a city, state, or federal office. Research shows that partisan identification is themost important predictor of voting. Since the vast majority of November voters cast ballots on a partisan
basis, the endorsement of local political party groups will become supremely important. It’s always important
to get political endorsements, of course, but in a November contest getting on a political slate card could belife or death. Neighborhood, environmental, social groups, business organizations, unions and other
community groups who play a role in normal city elections will be blown away by the partisan factor.
Council Candidates wlll not be identified by party on the ballot, of course, but everything will depend ongetting party endorsements, being included on party slates, and communicating partisanship to the voters.
(FYI, any prominent Democratic Party office holder at the state or county level who wanted to jump into acontest for an open city council seat might of course have an advantage in partisan name ID and partisan
contacts, whether they had any background in city issues or not. There are a lot of Democratic office holders
I could vote for in a city race; but I would prefer that they earn the office in a normal Austin election wherethey engaged in lengthy public debate on city issues.)
Thank you for your attention,
Dean Rindy