Local Elections

[softwareNerd]

I find it funny to see a signs asking me to come vote for a "Country Drain Commissioner". As someone who was not raised in the U.S., it seems bizarre to me that so many officials are elected. I do not know the historical basis for this. I guess if one lived in a small town, and knew the famous people in the various parishes, one could make some kind of reasoned judgement about them. However, in a typical urban or suburban context, I think the slates need to be culled. I'd rather spend the time figuring out what one person (a city chief-executive) is like. Then, he can choose the guy responsible for the drains.

Few people vote in local elections. We had one recently, in our city of about 40,000 - 50,000 voters and about 9,500 votes were cast. There was a vote for two members of the school board and there was a vote for a millage.

The millage vote got me thinking about this. Since 75% of the voters had stayed away, did that mean they wanted to be taxed a little more, or that they didn't, or that they didn't care. To a large extent, I think it was because they did not even realize the millage was on the ballot.

The millage (about an extra $150 per year for a typical home-owner in our city) is for the city library. Since we go there regularly, we saw the signs that had been put up in the library asking people to vote "Yes".

I'd like to see a law in our city that was analogous to a quorum requirement at a meeting. It should say that a vote for an increase in millage will only be passed if more than 30% (say) of the eligible voters, vote for the increase -- in addition to the obvious requirement that over 50% of those who vote should also want it.

[softwareNerd]

In the wake of the so called Calfornian "tax-revolt" of the 1970's, similar laws were passed. Inter alia, Proposition 13 prohibited local governments from enacting most new taxes without a 2/3 vote of the electorate.

[gags]

I always vote in my local millage elections. I consistently vote against any increase in the millage and against any renewals. I'm also consistently on the losing side.

[source]

Local elections are about to happen in Croatia too. The politicians are campaigning like mad, but all I hear is how they'll build sewers, improve roads, build new tram rails, and generally spend all the tax money on something that isn't their business. So, my only choice is to chose someone who will spend my money.

I vote nonetheless. Why? Because while in this regard there is only one kind of politicians, there is still something to chose from - the lesser evil. And while the lesser evil is still very great, it is far better than the alternative, which is consisted of politicians who first steal the money from the people they govern, and then waste it completely. They are our current government and it seems as though they are a black hole for cash. They get it and then it just vanishes. Like it was never there. And they're just taking more and more every day and every day things are worse than the day before. All business is at a halt and their accounts are or soon will be blockaded because allegedly they aren't paying taxes (and did I mention that at the end of each year, the government adds 15% "interest" to the total amount of unpaid tax -- and without even notifying the citizens about it!).

With other people posing as a government, at least I can see where all the money goes. And at least business is running - barely, but running. The coice is thus clear, however, our present government wants to blur even that. They have "scandals" (and I wouldn't be surprised if I found out they were staged) every month or so and then a single person goes out of their party and makes one of his own. There are so many of these "satellite parties" in Croatia that it is hard to keep up with all of them as they emerge.

Anyway, whichever way you put it, it's a disaster. The only choice during the election one thus needs to make is which disaster is greater and then vote for the other one.

[Hal]

I've never voted in national elections, and I'm not sure if Britain even has local ones.

Edited May 12, 2005 by Hal

[Bobby66]

Local elections are also about to happen in the German state of North Rhein Westphalia (NRW) on May 22nd. The situations can very well be compared to the one source described about Croatia: High taxes, wasteful subsidies into hard coal extraction in stead of lowering the taxes and letting the people decide for themselves what to spend their money on. And all this mainly because the Social Democrats (SPD, the party that also forms our current government) are in charge of NRW.

But as actual figures point out, the SPD is about to loose that election in favour of a Christian Democrat / Liberal Democrat (FDP / CDU) coalition, and with that, the last and longest enduring (39 years) socialist stronghold in Germany will collapse, since all other states have already thrown off the SPD in their local elections. This will clear the way for the final removal of our national government in next year's national elections.

But, similarly to the situation in Croatia, an FDP/CDU lead NRW will be just the lesser evil. The only party (the FDP, Liberal Democrats) that wants to eliminate all subsidies on hard coal extraction is just a small party and won't have the final say in the coalition with the CDU, who only wants to cut that subsidies in half.

And above all, due to our constitutional "social market economy", we'll never have a government that fully respects human rights.

[softwareNerd]

I've never voted in national elections, and I'm not sure if Britain even has local ones.

Why don't you vote, Hal? The reason I've heard most often from Objectivists is that they do not want to sanction evil: Both sides (all three, in your case) are so bad, that the "lesser-evil" argument is trumped by the "don't support evil" one.

[Bobby66]

Why don't you vote, Hal? The reason I've heard most often from Objectivists is that they do not want to sanction evil: Both sides (all three, in your case) are so bad, that the "lesser-evil" argument is trumped by the "don't support evil" one.

Go vote, that's my advice. It should be in your own rational self interests to have them violated as less as possible. The initiation of force has already occured by putting evil parties on display for election. You have the right to defend your life.

I think that's what the Objectivists would say.

[Hal]

Why don't you vote, Hal? The reason I've heard most often from Objectivists is that they do not want to sanction evil: Both sides (all three, in your case) are so bad, that the "lesser-evil" argument is trumped by the "don't support evil" one.

That's pretty much it. Plus I believe that in today's climate people are morally responsible for (all) the actions taken by those they vote for, and there's noone I would currently trust to that extent.

Edited May 16, 2005 by Hal

[softwareNerd]

Once again our city had a local election where one of the proposals was an increase in a millage. As expected, it passed. Only 8% of the voters turned up and, of those, about 75% voted for it.

Each such increased millage is not much -- perhaps an increase of $100-200 a year for the average property owner, which is a small percentage of the annual property tax. Still, there are folks who'll drive an extra mile (to COSTCO) to get gas 10 cents cheaper but won't drive 2 miles to save $100 for the year.

Our city is one where the residents would generally give city-government a high approval rating. So, my guess is that the majority of people find the status quo quite satisfactory; they simply assume that the tax increases are needed to keep our city going.

Therefore, I must assume that the government taxes me with the happy approval of my typical neighbour. Too bad.

[mrocktor]

Ah, the I am forced to vote in every election option is missing! Here in Brazil if you miss 3 straight elections (and don't pay the fines for doing so) you lose you voter registration - which is required for such things as being hired for a job, opening a bank account...

mrock

[Maarten]

Isn't it nice that they are so concerned with their citizen's approval?

There aren't that many votes going on here I think, except for choosing on the local level who gets into the city council. I don't think I've ever heard about voting for whether or not you pay an extra tax. I think that is what the city councils simply decide to do by themselves, but then I am not very interested in it so maybe I just miss those votes...

Edited May 9, 2006 by Maarten

[non-contradictor]

I'm not eligible to vote yet, but from what my parents tell me, my town's (county's?) local elections are for people like the coroner, county clerk, and most of all, school referendums. There was a big uproar a little while ago because my old school district was going to eliminate sports and extracurriculars if it didn't get more money. In that case, I would probably vote; I have a particular animosity for my old school district and really public school districts in general.

As for who is county clerk or coroner, I wouldn't vote because I don't know what those people do. I would perhaps find out thier job functions and then vote, but as it stands now... no.

[softwareNerd]

Yes, a lot of the city and county jobs up for election are ones that ought to be appointed. With the possible exception for the large metros and tiny towns, there just isn't enough information available about candidates for jobs like the school board -- as important as the role might be. At most, each candidate will have a single leaflet or a single web-page and they'll all say something general enough to make everyone happy. Funnier still is when one is asked to elect the "Country Drain Commissioner".

My current policy is to vote in local elections when there is a new millage or some such proposition that I can read and form an opinion. I don't vote for any of the candidates.

[SBP2009]

I vote in civic elections, provincial and federal elections. I have yet to vote in a school board election.

My thinking is that even though most people running for city council are vile leftists, there are always some local businesspeople that run for city council. Two civic elections ago we elected a mayor and city council that is likely the most business-friendly this city has seen in decades. The result was commendable action in reversing several problematic meddlesome bylaws. This in turn led to the building of at least five new neighborhoods and two major power strip centers. While the city (unfortunately) still has a very long way to go, there is now new residential development in an area of the city's outskirts that had not seen anything new built in over thirty years. They also have kept property taxes from going up.

Now of course, I won't really be happy until my city is a property-tax-free bastion of laissez-faire, but keeping rampaging socialists out of city council is a start.