- Hey Ben: Questions about tax amnesty
- US Rep. John Murtha, June 17, 1932 – February 8, 2010
- Getting Real Answers from Gubernatorial Candidates
- It is always a good thing when our government works well
- Courtfighter: Delaware County Judge Maureen Fitzpatrick A Bigot? You Judge How Often Bigotry Occurs In Media, PA
- We'll Get You Ready for State Budget Release Tuesday
- ONE Praises U.S. Treasury Announcement to Work with International Partners to Relieve Haiti’s Debt
- A giant toxic monster is coming your way OR no rigs before regs!
- We Need Immigration Reform Now! Why Stu Bykofsky got it wrong.
- Stop losing the war on health insurance reform
Installing Bishops or Representative Democracy? I Really Don’t Know.
Submitted by Gaetano P. on Mon, 08/28/2006 - 5:20pm.
There is no doubt--I am an absolute Middle Ages junkie. It seems I am constantly reading a historical piece about the time period between the fall of Rome and the Turkish capture of Constantinople, considered by some to be the end of the period of history. I do not know why. Maybe it’s a childhood fascination with knights and battle and all of the other trappings associated therewith. One particular aspect I always found interesting, however, was the ever present struggle between a monarch and the Church for the installation of bishops, very important/prominent positions, with lots of say and material trappings.
Needless to say, presently, monarchy hardly exists as it did during those times and the Church is not really as powerful in matters temporal. But, just this week, I picked up on something that could be a modern day parallel—Philadelphia City Council. Specifically related to special elections.
By now, we all know that Anna Verna, City Council President has declared that special elections for the three vacant council seats will occur on November 7. Those seats are vacant for a number of reasons, including death, corruption and resignation. Verna has, indeed, taken her time with this decision. After all, it is an important one; one that in my mind balances having a truly open process versus a more selective, insider process.
Many people do not know, however, how are the Democratic nominees (in reality the only people who can win) are going to be chosen. I will share—ward leaders. The 69 or so Democratic ward leaders will vote on the nominee for the At-Large seat. In the meantime, the ward leaders of within the two vacant districts will choose the nominees in those districts. Thus, City Committee is picking the nominees. I hear, that ever popular Carol Campbell will be one of those selected nominees. Interesting, isn’t it?
So, here is my quandary—are we installing bishops (not literally of course) or are we promoting democracy.
Personally, I do not like this process for a number of reasons. First, does not seem geared towards getting the best people in office. Only an open election can even come close (and even then, I have some doubts).
Second, it seems rather undemocratic to not have an open primary. After all, these people will be incumbents in the next election, with all of the associated benefits.
Third, I do not like the appearance of back room dealing in relation to representative positions paying around $100,000. It just does not seem right.
Last, looking at the list of those interested in these seats, including Carol Campbell and Richard Subbio, I am less than impressed, and, in fact, very frightened. That is not to say there are no decent (presumed) candidates (from what I heard there are), but is this something we really need ward leaders to decide. My personal belief is that the ward system is based on a time when hundreds of thousands of non-english speaking, relatively illiterate or uneducated immigrants (this does not apply to all, but many) were landing in our cities and the parties needed a way to organize them for party benefit. Now with universal public education and, generally, the ability read, ward leaders picking nominees for office seems to fly in the face of a modern democracy. That is not to say that ward leaders do not have a place, but I question whether picking among their own ranks for jobs this important should be one of them.
On the other hand, I do understand the practicalities of the situation. There are three seats, including two districts, without representation. People should not go unrepresented for too long. Additionally, having an open primary would be very expensive for the city. In addition, some may argue that people elect their committee people, who in-turn, elect the ward leaders. thereby rendering the process completely representative. But, I have some problems with this contention as so many Philadelphians have no idea who these people are (I guess for City Committee, ignorance is just fine).
On the face of it, it seems like we are just installing bishops, but I can be persuaded.
Sometimes we get...
...what we deserve. While in practice, you are 100% correct, that these seats will be chosen by an unelected few. In theory, Philadelphians do have a choice even in this situation. Registered voters choose committee people. Committee people choose ward leaders. Ward leaders from the two major parties choose nominees to fill vacant Council seats. The problem, of course, is that the committee person elections occur during off-year, non-mayoral primaries which are lucky to get 15% turnout. The other problem is that there is far too little civic engagement so that qualified people aren't even running for committee person. What we end up with most of the time are committee people recruited by ward leaders who are then elected by voters that the ward leaders have asked to come out and vote. Of course, there are exceptions, as in my home ward and division.
Unless the electorate becomes much more active, takes the time to educate themselves and shows up to vote for every position, from mayor down to committee person, we'll continue to get the kinds of office holders we deserve. In fact, you hit the nail exactly on the head when you expressed your doubts about an open election. Even an open election, a primary, whether a special date or held on the same day as the May 2007 primary, would most likely produce the same end result with the way the party is able to influence the outcome of low profile races like District Council. And yes, those are low profile races to your average Philadelphian. In fact, when I walked around the Seventh District for a day trying to get reaction to Rick Mariano's resignation, I got more people saying "who's that?" than any other response (second was "he's a good guy, he does good for the district").
So this quote I found the other day for one of my own blog posts continues to ring true:
"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber."
As I'm preaching to the choir, I'll just say pass that along next time someone who complains about the trash on the ground also claims not to be interested in politics.
Cross posted at The Next Mayor Blog.
Democracy
All 3 of you make good points -- Hi Dan! -- but democracy works best as a PARTICIPATORY form of government. Those who participate, govern.
It is up to the people
Committee person elections are not off year, the democratic committee seats are on the same year at the governor elections, and the republican I believe are the other even years, in some sense it is the even numbered years that bring the most voters out.
The problem is not that many people know who their committee person is or if they even have one, people have become complacent and unattentive to the need to be active, we can see that when we have St Rep Rieger around for so many years and the country elected Bush twice.
While no system is always ideal, just because the system doesn't work the way we want it to all of the time does not mean that it doesn't balance itself out in the end if people are active in it and work.
There will be a primary next year in which almost anyone can run, Black, White, Latino, Asian, etc Male Female never heard of a hermaphrodite run but they can too.
Any system only work as much as the people in it do.
Correction
First, Rob, you're right. I should have remembered that I was following those races so closely last May. I guess I just forgot what year it is. After a while they all seem to run together. Regardless, I think the turnout for this past primary was only 17 or 18 percent - pathetic. When there's no contested primary on the Democratic side for Governor, which was the case this year, you're going to have the same situation.
Second, I don't disagree with the original post that the current selection system is almost as ridiculous as the selection process for the Fairmount Park Commission (which I think is given as an example in the definition of the word "shadowy"). I'm just saying that given the current system, the only way to get candidates like Quinones Sanchez selected is for people to start tuning in.
Can anyone provide the link in the Charter or Code that says that this is how that process works? I looked through the Charter for about 5 minutes before I have up. What happens if there's a third party complete with ward leaders and committee people? Would those ward leaders also get to choose nominees? Can the Republican ward leaders select the same person as the Democratic ward leaders?
Philadelphia Democratic Party Rules
Don't know about the Charter, but here is a link to the Democratic Party rules:
http://www.campaignscientific.com/PublicData/PhilaDemRules.pdf#search=%2...
The issue in question (nomination for special elections) is discussed in RULE X with our issues covered in Articles 3 and 4.
It is stated explicitly in RULE VII, Article 3, section f.
They all do it
This process is clearly undemocratic and should be changed.
But there seems to be a huge disconnect on here about the reality of what the Phila. ward system is and what very similar Republican and Democratic institutions looks like in other cities, in the suburbs and rural areas.
I know Republicans in the 'burbs and one is an 'area leader' which after questioning him intensely, I still cannot discern any real differences between a Republican 'area leader' and a Philadelphia ward leader. There are no differences in tactics, loyalties, drama, accusations of back stabbing, and all the other words and phrases and that are conjured up to explain ‘politics.’
What is going on with phila. city council goes on across the state.
Just a couple years ago outside of Harrisburg, a Republican state representative ran for re-election in the primary unopposed. After winning he announced that he wouldn't run in the general and announced his support for his chief of staff. The Republican party 'area leaders' in that district chose the candidate in the general election (guess who?), exactly like the Philadelphia Democratic party is doing - not that it makes it right, but it doesn't mean that the Phila. Democratic Party is a monster for doing what every other Republican and Democratic entity does across the state - they are following the law, by the way.
If you don't like the concept of a party and ward system then say that, if you do, but don't like your leadership, then run and defeat them. If you can't persuade your neighbors to vote for you over the incumbent committeeperson - well that's life - maybe you shouldn't be a committeeperson then.
I understand and agree that the Party should be receptive to arguments that Latinos need representation in Mariano's old seat, but the realities of the ward leadership is what it is - more Latinos need to be committee people in that district so they can change the ward leadership – in this type of selection process. Maria clearly has a chance to win in next year’s primary, with or without party support.
But after it is all said and done, we're all gonna have to join together and come out and wipe the floor with the Republicans in this General Election.
AM
special elections
special elections: an undemocratic process
In November 2006 three special elections will be held, including one to fill the 7th Council District seat formerly held by Rick Mariano.
The 7th Council District is over 50% Latino and one of the candidates vying for the seat is Maria Quinones Sanchez, a strong progressive candidate endorsed by Philadelphia NOW and Pennsylvania NOW.
Yet despite Quinones Sanchez’ stellar credentials and the demographics of the district, it appears that the Democratic nominee may be one of two non-Latino ward leaders, neither of whom can match Quinones Sanchez’ record of service to the community.
Our process is fundamentally undemocratic. The Democratic and Republican ward leaders choose the nominees for their parties and the voters decide between the Democrat chosen by the Democratic ward leaders and the Republican chosen by the Republican Party ward leaders. And ward leaders have a tendency to nominate other ward leaders.
May be this would make sense if we had a two party system in this town. At least the voters would play some role in the decision making process. But in most districts, the decision is made in the Democratic primary and winning the Democratic nomination is tantamount to winning the election.
So the ward leaders make the choice—not the voters. True, there will be an opportunity for the voters to make a choice in Spring 2007 primary election, but the winner of the 2006 special election will as an incumbent have a considerable advantage.
The voters of the 7th district and indeed all Philadelphia voters should be outraged.
Karen Bojar
President, Phila NOW
posted on wwww.philanow.blogspot.com
Yes--I agree, we need a more
Yes--I agree, we need a more involved electorate. In the meantime, are you seriously contending that people should benefit from the ignorance of the voters. If so, that is your call. But, fact is our electorate is uninvolved and while it hurts them, it hurts those who give a damn too. So, I guess if you are happy with a system that benefits from and promotes ignorance, that is fine. But, I am not. And, while no system can be ideal, does that mean we shouldn't try and make it so.
The selection of nominees by ward leaders is an antiquated process. It is not one level up from the voters, but two (electorate to committee people to ward leaders). Their accountablilty for poor decision making is, likewise, dilutted. In part this is based on the uninvolved electorate. But, it is also based on this layered approach. So--even controlling for the uninvolved electorate, I still think the process is more akin to installation that voting.
Maybe if we directly elected ward leaders, then I would say fair is fair, but we do not. Sometimes systems are created to discourage participation. I think this nominee process is designed to do just that.
rules governing special elections
Lauren,
The Dem. party rules won't give us election law--just internal Dem. party prodeures. The rules governing special elections are somewhere in state election code.
karen
25 P.S. Sec. 2953(a) provides
25 P.S. Sec. 2953(a) provides:
"In all cases where a vacancy shall occur for any cause in an elective public office, including that of judge of a court of record, at a time when such vacancy is required by the provisions of the Constitution or the laws of this Commonwealth to be filled at the ensuing election but at a time when nominations for such office cannot be made under any other provision of this act, nominations to fill such vacancies shall be made by political parties in accordance with party rules relating to the filling of vacancies by means of nomination certificates in the form prescribed in section nine hundred ninety-four of this act, and by political bodies by means of nomination papers in accordance with the provisions of sections nine hundred fifty-one, nine hundred fifty-two and nine hundred fifty-four of this act. No such nomination certificate shall nominate any person who has already been nominated by any other political party or by any political body for the same office unless such person is a candidate for the office of judge of a court of common pleas, the Philadelphia Municipal Court or the Traffic Court of Philadelphia, or for the office of school director in districts where that office is elective or for the office of justice of the peace. No such nomination papers shall nominate any person who has already been nominated by any political party or by any other political body for any office to be filled at the ensuing November election, unless such person is a candidate for the office of judge of a court of common pleas, the Philadelphia Municipal Court or the Traffic Court of Philadelphia, or for the office of school director in districts where that office is elective or for the office of justice of the peace."
So--in this instance, the Election Code incorporates the Party Rules by reference. Thank you Lauren for posting those. I would post a link to this statute, but I pulled it from my own electronic resource.
Chhosing special Election candidates
Many people are now criticizing Democratic CIty
Committee and to a certain extent labor, about
holding a special election. You should note that when
big city machines and labor picked candidates they
picked Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Adlai
Stevenson, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Hubert
Humphrey. Since then we got George Mcgovern, Jimmy
Carter, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and
John Kerry. Which group of candidates was more progressive, better for
America and the Democratic Party?
Huh? At first, I thought y
Huh?
At first, I thought you meant that machine candidates were more progressive. But, that seems weird. Cause it would be hard to say that, for example, McGovern was less progressive than most of the people you listed.
Then I thought you meant that machine candidates won. But, of course, then you included Stevenson and Humphrey.
What are you talking about?
First, much of this analysis
First, much of this analysis is entirely subjective. So, I will not even touch the merits of these candidates or officials.
Second, it seems like you are arguing the ends justifiy the means--just because we might get a great leaders (though its not likely) out of someone like Carol Campbell, it is okay that her assention be undemocratic. That, I cannot buy. I do not care how you dress it up--it is the same thing--ridiculous.
Let's look at the concept of monarch for a minute. Without doubt, there have been many great kings and queens throughout time. But, I would rather vote for a bad leader in a democracy, than have one forced upon me. Isn't that the point of democracy? Henry V was a great king and fantastic administrator. He knew how to win a battle too. But, honestly, give me someone like Jimmy Carter any day over having someone forced upon me.
Sometimes force doesn't bring change......
it should be up to the people ,not our officials. We are no better than Castro placing his brother into office to rule Cuba. There was no vote there, but we are so much better than the country of Cuba , doing the same things that dictators are doing. Forcing us to take these unknown friends of officials is just not right. They have the chance just like everyone else to be voted into office just like everyone else, I hope!
Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog