Portsmouth is the latest locality to opt for a change in its local elections from May to November and will be requesting General Assembly approval of the charter change. While I used to fully agree with my friends Brian Kirwin and J.R. Hoeft, I am no longer so sure that a move to November is such a good thing.
There is no doubt that May elections are a throwback to an earlier time in Virginia when the Byrd machine controlled Virginia politics. Limiting the number of voters was key:
Byrd’s political power was based on the ability of the appointed and elected officials to restrict the number of voters, and ensure those few voters were supporters of the Byrd Organization (or “machine”). A landslide election would have 7% of the potential electorate voting for candidates supported by Byrd, and 4% voting for the opposition… a total of less than 15% of theoretically-possible voters actually participating in the process.
He was helped, of course, by a constitution designed to do just that:
The 1902 Constitution had disenfranchised most black and poor white voters, by establishing a poll tax. In 1905, the number of people voting was reduced to 50% of the number who voted in 1901. In 1940, only 10% of the Virginians over the age of 21 were voting. The percentage of blacks over 21 who voted was about half of that.
May elections continue to have far lower turnout than those in November. Combined with the fact that the state picks up the cost of November elections, it appears on the surface that the move to November is a no-brainer.
But does the move to November do anything to increase the quality of candidates? I say no; in fact, I believe it has the opposite effect. Probably the biggest reason is resources. It takes a lot more money to run in a November election than in May, so I believe we are limiting the pool of candidates to those with money, or those with access to money. It goes without saying that a challenger already has an uphill battle in raising money, because donors tend to prefer incumbents.
Getting volunteers for a November campaign is much harder, as folks like to work on the upticket races more than the lower ones. Which, of course, ends up leading to a sharing of resources between campaigns, something that generally only happens when political parties are involved. The injection of partisanship into local races further limits the number, and perhaps the quality, of candidates, as the independent ones are left out.
On its face, partisanship is not necessarily a bad thing. But when voters go to the polls and vote for a candidate based on that fact alone, something that Brian mentioned in his letter to the editor, I have a problem. Plus, we’ve seen how downticket candidates tie themselves to upticket ones – even when they disagree with them, as was the case in the Will Sessoms election two years ago. While I haven’t done as extensive an analysis on the recent Norfolk Ward 7 and Portsmouth mayoral race, I believe the get-out-the-vote effort of 3rd CD Rep. Bobby Scott helped the winners in each case.
If the goal is simply to increase turnout, then November makes sense. For that matter, why not go ahead and move the gubernatorial election to even years, so that it is on the same ballot as the presidential race? After all, a significant amount of money is invested each cycle to try to get those Federal voters to the polls. And while you’re at it, move the General Assembly races to even years, too. That way, a federal race will always be at the top of the ticket.
But if the goal is an informed electorate, people voting for a person based on knowledge of what that person says they will do or has already done, then the noise of a November election just won’t cut it. I hate the low turnout of May elections, but I’d much rather spend my time, energy and money to try to help the electorate become more informed than to simply get bodies to the polls.
“I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1820
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Very good analysis, Vivian. I have not seen the argument put so well before.
Thanks!
Vivian-
This is a very thoughtful post and your arguments for keeping the election as it is are tough to dismiss.
I guess it all boils down to what we consider a meaningful election – one where only a handful of people make the decision or one where a substantial amount of the voting population participate.
In the state elections, a reasonable number of the electorate participates, and it makes a degree of sense to keep the federal and state elections separate for the sake of having that clear focus and choice.
Clearly that argument can also be made for keeping local and federal elections separate – but my counter to that, and it isn’t a very strong argument, I concede – is that the decisions at the local and federal level are so different, that the choice between them should be obvious to the voter. Voting for candidates who are making decisions about international policy is clearly different from hearings on local zoning plans (perhaps not by that much!).
You would expect those that are interested in their communities to learn about the candidates they are voting for and advocate on their behalf. And, while it is likely true that volunteers for a federal campaign may be the same volunteers for a local campaign – is that so bad if more voters are learning about them and making an informed decision?
The reality is that neither date is perfect, but, for once, I am taking a more democratic approach. The irony is that you are taking a more republican one.
Note that I did not capitalize in the last paragraph…it has nothing to do with party.
I agree – and I certainly wish it was the case. 😦
If the sharing of volunteers resulted in additional information about the local candidates, I’d agree with you. But you know as well as I that the folks at the bottom of the ticket get nothing more than lit drops, if that, from the upticket campaigns. So the only thing the voter learns is that the local candidate is a Republican or a Democrat; in other words, not much more than simply sticking that on the ballot, which is what Brian advocates.
I am not wedded to May elections or November ones. Where I am is that I want a more informed electorate.
Absolutely agree…along with more participation.
I’m not sure voters pay as much attention to the local candidates and elections if they are run in tandem with state or national races. I’m sure the media does not.
I know when this discussion came up in Hampton during a race several years ago all the sitting councilmen at the time were against the move. They felt the issues in the local elections got lost when it came to coverage on the bigger races. I have also heard comments from people that they don’t pay as much attention to local races when bigger ones are in the news. So I think for quality it is better to keep in May.
Local elections held in the May time frame historically has low turn out and low turn out bodes well for incumbents. Thats why sitting elected officials will defend May elections till hell freezes over!