Laserfiche WebLink
prob�lem because they will already have lawn signs, literature, volunteers, lists of <br />contributors,, etc. <br />Some are concerned that having the council appoint someone will give that candidate an <br />"unfair" advantage. However, the only advantage that person enjoys is a chance to show <br />their competence or incompetence) in office. The advantages given to certain candidates <br />under a shortened election cycle are even greater. <br />In a shortened election cycle, the advantage is structural and has little to do with the quality <br />of the candidate. Under the shortened election cycle, the advantage is of having an <br />organization in place. That advantage is much more of a problem for good government than <br />is the name recognition that might be associated with an appointed candidate. <br />Third, under the current proposal, candidates, could be elected to office by a tiny <br />minority of citizens. <br />Unless the special election also includes a primary (which of course lengthens the time and <br />increases the cost of the special election) it is possible for a candidate to be elected who only <br />received as few as 1/10 of the votes cast. How is a system that produces such an "elected" <br />official more legitimate than a system where four people, all elected by a majority of voters, <br />select the council member who will serve for a limited period of time? It is not. <br />The City of North St. Paul has roughly 7,400 registered voters. In their recent special election <br />to fill the vacancy created by the death of their mayor, only 1,779 voters participated! That is <br />less than one quarter of registered voters. The winning candidate, who also was a longtime <br />member of the city council and the acting mayor, received only 791 votes. It is easy to <br />imagine a scenario of a less known candidate winning the election with only a few hundred <br />votes. Would that candidate enjoy any greater "legitimacy" or better represent the <br />community? <br />Appointment by the city council is no guarantee of a better candidate. However, it does <br />avoid many of the problems associated with the current proposal. Also, it avoids the $20,000 <br />cost of a special election. Certainly the cost of elections is part of the cost of democracy. One <br />has to ask though, is the quality of product in a special election worth $20,000? Unless the <br />ordinance we adopt addresses the quality of the special election, the clear answer is no. <br />11 <br />