Local: Peoria elections are going to be a lot weirder (UPDATED to fix error)
I was chatting with Tom Bride, executive director of the Peoria Election Commission and he passed along this information that many voters in the city may not know.
The state legislature has approved changes designed to lessen the likelihood municipalities like Peoria will have to hold primary elections for city offices.
Under the rules in effect in the two previous city elections, a primary election was needed when there were three candidates for mayor and/or district council seats (and other city-wide officers like city clerk) and when at least 11 people were running for at-large council positions. Now, five candidates for mayor or district council seats meant a primary election is needed. If 21 people file petitions for at-large seats, a primary is required.
In 2007 (at-large only), 14 people ran for five at-large seats. The top 10 vote-getters made it to the general election, and five were elected. Under the rules in place today, every single one of these people would have competed in the consolidated general election, and the five getting the most would win, regardless of how small that percentage would be. That year, the top five vote-getters in the primary were also the same top five vote-getters in the general election. The percentages ranged from 17 down to 11 percent. In the consolidated general election, the results ranged from 19 to 11 percent. So the change from 14 candidates on the ballot to 10 made little difference in results.
However, in 2005 (mayor/district council election only), we had four people running for mayor in the primary: Current Mayor Jim Ardis, then-Mayor David Ransburg, former City Council member Bruce Brown and current at-large council member Eric Turner. In the primary, Ransburg got 34.93 percent of the vote while Ardis got 33.21 percent. Had all four faced off in the general consolidated election a little more than one month later, it’s very possible the results would be duplicated.
But when Ardis and Ransburg faced off against each other, Ardis came out ahead 55-45 percent. Had the new rules been in effect then, voters would have been denied the ability to make someone other than Dave Ransburg their mayor, which is obvious from the results of both primary and general elections that voters wanted to make the change.
What benefit would this be to voters? Not much. Sure it saves money. Bride mentioned figures in the tens of thousands of dollars. Primary elections were needed the last six city elections. Under the new rules, just two would have been needed.
But consider the effect: Under the current system, the mayor and district council members must be elected by a majority of those casing ballots. Under the new system, we can have a mayor and half the council were were not elected by a majority, but a simple plurality.
Is it better for city leaders to lead from the position of strength given them from being elected by a majority? I think so. And I don’t think it’s necessary to try to save a few dollars by going cheap on the process by which we elect people to office. I can think of no more essential government service than elections.
In 2005 (mayor/district council), there would have had to be a primary anyway because of the five people running in the 1st District, and there were five candidates for mayor in 1997 (mayor/district council). In 2001 (mayor/district council), none of the primary races had more than five candidates. There were just eight candidates in 2003 (at-large). But there were 11 candidates in 1999 (at-large), enough to trigger a primary election then to whittle the number down to 10.
It’s difficult to come to conclusions about the at-large elections because of bullet voting. It’s possible one of the five winners could be the recipient of one vote from a lot of people, or all five votes from a handful. Current top vote-getter Gary Sandberg almost certainly benefits from a large number of votes from a significant number of people.
But with as many as 20 people capable of being in the race, it’s also possible that half the council could, theoretically, owe their victory to getting just a little bit more than five percent of the votes cast (that’s 100 percentage points spread across 20 candidates).
The more likely result is that it will get even harder to get incumbents out of office as voters wanting change tend to split their votes among lesser known challengers.
If there is a consolidated primary election, it will be held on the last Tuesday in February 2009. The consolidated general election will be the first Tuesday in April 2009.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Billy, this post is confusing. You might want to consider rewording… and adding some pertinent information, like what it will take under the new rules to trigger a primary (you only mentioned what it took under the old rules).
July 9th, 2008 at 8:54 am
“Primary elections were needed the last six city elections”
We didn’t have a primary in 2003 which was only three elections ago, and had a primary in 1999 to go from 11 people on the ballot in February to 10 people on the ballot in April. The city elections are are consolidated elections (odd year only) and the new changes in the law has no effect on the general elections (even years only). As a added note the primary election in 2007 had a 9.7% turnout and the primary election in 1999 had a 12.9% turnout.
The effect could be more noticeable in the mayoral and district races.
July 9th, 2008 at 9:46 am
This is likely going to confuse the issue a bit more, but here goes….
For mayoral elections, if you like the idea that you should require a candidate to get a majority of the vote, and you’re unhappy that state law essentially moved the city to a plurality election (unless 5 candidates file for mayor), there is a reform that is starting to catch on around the nation in municipal elections that Peoria can and should consider.
It’s a ranked ballot.
You get a first-choice, second-choice and third-choice on the ballot. Think of your second-choice as your runoff-choice, in case your first-choice doesn’t make it to the runoff. That way, instead of holding two separate elections (one in February and one in April), voters just say who their vote in the runoff would be if there was one and their first-choice candidate didn’t make it.
The election commission counts the ballots twice. They count all the first-choice votes and see if someone earned a majority. If so, great. That person has the mandate and she won. If not, then an instant runoff is held. Everyone but the top two candidates are eliminated (just like it used to be). And the ballots are counted again (just like it used to be). Only now, instead of asking people to come back and vote in April, the election commission just looks at the second-choices of the people who voted for one of the eliminated candidates.
You could do the same thing for the district races where only one person is elected.
Since Peoria is home rule, you could do this by referendum if people liked the idea.
There’s a longer post on how this ranked ballot could actually improve the cumulative voting rights regime you have for the at-large elections as well (ensuring a fair shot for minorities but not splitting the vote among a dozen candidates), but I won’t get into that here.
Places in the US that do this include Burlington VT, Cambridge MA, San Francisco CA and Minneapolis MN is trying to get past a law suit filed by opponents of the recently enacted measure. Internationally this is how Ireland elects their governments.
Finally, Springfield IL just passed a very modest form of a ranked ballot to let overseas absentee voters use it in their municipal elections, effective 2011.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Tom: My mistake on the 1999 primary. The city-supplied document I was using was confusing as it listed five candidates on one page and an additional six on another.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Billy,
The election results reports before 2006 can be very confusing. My bigger point was trying to make sure no one is confusing the odd year (consolidated) elections with the even year (general) elections.
Dan,
There was a house bill this year in Springfield that didn’t go anywhere that would have given the election authorities the option of using ranked ballot for the odd year primary. The issue that the bill was attempting to address was the length of time between the primary election in late February and the election in early April. It is almost impossible to mail ballots overseas, especially military, and get them back in time for the election in April.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
[...] a change in Illinois law that would lessen the likelihood that municipalities would have to hold primary elections. I was critical, because it also increased the possibility that someone could get elected to the [...]
October 27th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Sorry for the long delay in responding..
Tom (and anyone else reading this that’s interested) that bill finally did get signed into law. It was slow going, but the governor did end up signing it. So now (well, effective January 1, 2009), Peoria could implement a Springfield-style ranked ballot for overseas voters by ordinance rather than requiring a referendum.
Billy, could you let Tom know that the bill got signed? It was SB 439 and is now Public Act 95-0889. It’s not effective until January 1, 2009 and the State Board of Elections has to promulgate rules. Thanks.