Young Philly Politics contributors are no strangers to hyperbole and exaggeration, but we got nothing on our offline counterparts at Old Philly Politics AKA The Philadelphia Public Record. I was particularly struck by this front page puff piece about City Commissioner Marge Tartaglione.
As someone who has actually worked full-time in a number of elections in Philadelphia, I can tell you that the City Commissioners have a big job on their hands. And, in many ways, they handle it well. However…I can not let some of the gems from the Public Record article (which strangely had no byline) slip by without comment:
The ease with which voters will find their polling places, sample ballots at those polling sites, and a staff of election workers ready to help them continues to underline the excellent management of the election process under the chairmanship of Margaret Tartaglione and the support she has gotten from fellow commissioners Edgar Howard and Joseph Duda.
Ok, did the writer of this article ever vote in Philadelphia?
Certainly at MoveOn and Philly Against Santorum, where volunteers worked to target new and infrequent voters, it was my experience that finding polling places is a major issue. I won’t comment on the efficacy of election workers, but I have seen some of the training materials used to prep poll workers (which are at best, underwhelming) and I think there is room for improvement there too.
The Public Record goes on to report that:
Cognizant of the changing population, Tartaglione has long ago initiated the use of interpreters and provided training curriculums and classes for them.
Um, does anyone remember when the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the City for violating the rights of Spanish speaking Philadelphia voters? And, don’t even get me started on how messed up ADA compliance still is when it comes to voting...
Despite my criticisms, I can respect Tartaglione and her fellow Commissoners for what they have accomplished. However, it’s simply not enough.
When local and state party leaders express serious concern about low turnout in the coming election (as is reported here), why don’t they ever mention the role that the City Commissioner’s office could play to boost it? For example:
* The Commissioners could send a postcard in the mail or an email reminding voters about Election Day. It’s been done before, in 2004 and to some extent in 2006, but not in Primaries and not in the 05 General. That’s one way to drive up turnout.
* Another idea: why don’t we take advantage of Wireless Philly and create a secure, online voter database so that Philadelphians could go to any polling location in the city rather than just the one in their ward and division? People live busy lives, and using technology to make tasks like voting simpler is a no-brainer.
* Same-day voter registration is another concept that has helped boost voter turnout in other states. This will require a change in state law, but how can we ever expect a change in state law to occur if election officials in Philadelphia and other large counties don’t get more aggressive and ask for one?
* Vote by mail, public advertising, partnering with utilities to print election info on bills (do you know how easy it would be to print your polling place location on your gas or water bill?), an updated website, and many other ideas are all available to the Commissioners to use to boost turnout.
The cynic in me thinks that the reason the City Commissioners here don’t act more aggressively to really increase voter turnout is inner party politics. The reality is if any true reform was enacted to make voting easier, it would be harder for the party to control primary elections.
Whether that is the case or not, the City Commissioner’s office needs to get a whole lot better and fast.
I know some folks in reform/progressive circles who want to run progressives for a City Commissioner spot, and maybe that is a good short-term fix, but frankly I think the best solution is to get rid of the elected Commissioners’ office altogether. Electing people to oversee city elections is really weird. Allegheny and Montgomery County, the 2nd and 3rd largest counties in the state respectively, don’t do this.
In the meantime, we don’t really have any choice in the coming election on Commissioners, and there are a lot of issues that demand our attention, but changing how some things are done at the City Commissioners’ office has to become a priority for progressives who want to get more Philadelphians voting and who want to elect progressive challengers.
Commissioner's Can Help Democrats Statewide
As I have written before, the biggest challenge that Philadelphia faces is apathy and cynicism among it's residents. People feel like there is nothing they can do to change their neighborhoods and communities for the better. In order to solve the many problems plaguing our city, we need as many people as possible to be active and engaged. The first and most basic step in civic engagement is voting.
It is somewhat mind boggling that the reforms suggested by Ray and others have not been implemented. Most of them are very simple and should not be controversial. There is no reason why utility bills sent by quasi-public entities like PGW can't include information about voter registration and a reminder about Election Day. I also really like the idea of letting people vote wherever they want. I work in Germantown and live in Northern Liberties. It would be much easier for me to vote during my lunch break instead of before or after work.
There is another, more partisan, reason that I want the Commissioner's to increase turnout. Philadelphia is where the most Democrats live in Pennsylvania and is vital for statewide elections. There was an article in the Daily News yesterday about the fears of many judicial candidates who worry that low turnout in the mayoral election will hurt Democratic candidates across the state. This is a very legitimate concern and I don't see either of the Commissioner's doing anything about it.
The Commissioner's office could really play a huge part in helping our party win elections on the statewide level. If turnout in Philadelphia was high enough, we could potentially keep Republicans from ever controlling the governorship. The same is true of other statewide offices like Attorney General, Auditor General, and Treasurer. Although they don't get a lot of press, these offices are incredibly important.
---
Check out my blog!
Casting a vote vs. participating in an election
This may be a generational gap, but I think going to your neighborhood polling place to vote connects you with your community. People spend enough time on line, working at home and in separate worlds that it is good to go to where the rest of their community goes and participate in the electoral process. They can see their neighbors, poll workers and Committee People. They can catch up on neighborhood news and talk to people. Elections were set for the first Tuesday in November because the harvest was over and people could come into town and meet and see everyone.
When people would complain that why polling places had to be handicap accessible that people in wheelchairs could vote absentee, I would say that is casting a ballot, not voting. We need more reasons to gather together in this society, not less.
There is another reason that people should come to their voting places. Many of Ray’s suggestions seem to be ripe for ways to steal an election. The Republicans already stole one, do you want to give them a chance to steal another.
Finally, if anyone wants to work on an election board in Roxborough/Manayunk please contact me at Agrelou@Yahoo.com. It pays about $95 per day.
voting choices
all i am talking about is choices. i have voted in the same polling place for almost all of my life. i like seeing my neighbors and i know everyone who works the polls. however, there are some people who simply don't vote because it is inconvenient for them. if we have the technology available to solve that problem, we should. that doesn't mean we close neighborhood polling places.
aside from which, at least in my neighborhood, many of the people who make up the fabric of our communuty don't live actually here (like people who work at the local school, deli, barber shops, etc). to have these folks voting locally would make a lot of sense and would only enhance the feeling of community for those who do prefer to vote in person.
i'm not sure what things i suggest you think would allow elections to be stolen, but same-day voter registration for instance, is already done in 7 states, 5 of which have the highest turnout in the country.
Sending a postcard to all registered voters is not going to get any election stolen either, and frankly it's a bare minimum when some states send sample ballots and voting guides to voters.
Printing polling place information on munincipal bills- also not going to get any election stolen.
My point above is not so much to make any one idea happen, but to point out that we as citizens should have much higher standards for the CIty Commissioners. And City Council and the Mayor, who have the power to initiate charter change, should be taking a hard look at vestigal elected office that is not generating high voter turnout for the largest Democratic pool of votes in the state.
One polling place, one ballot
The obstacle that you would have to overcome in city-wide voting are the precinct, ward, and district elections, for committeepeople, councilpeople, state reps, or even congressional reps, that actually do vary from polling place to polling place citywide.
You would either need much more sophisticated voting machines (and therefore much more sophisticated training for poll workers) or a much more complicated ballot. Otherwise you risk a large number of voters either voting in the wrong precinct election or having their votes in those races cancelled out.
If there's an easy way to get around that problem, though, it is a great idea. And same-day voter registration is even better.
--Tim
City commissioners’ office: opportunity for political education
Ray refers to the city commissioners’ office “as a vestigial elected office” and questions why we are electing D’s and R’s for what should be a non-partisan office. He makes a good point, and maybe we should move in that direction.
However, the elected position is a real opportunity for a progressive candidate who (in addition to making voting easier) could use the office as a platform for real political education.
Alex Talmadge was moving in that direction during his brief tenure as city commissioner —e.g. visiting high school classes to educate kids about the political process. Chuck Feldman who ran about 20(?) years ago had very ambitious plans for making the city commissioners’ office a high profile job which would educate voters and generate some excitement about participation in political process.
We have increasing numbers of young people interested in public service and there are just so many elected offices. Last primary election too many candidates were running for the same office—council at large. If one of these reform candidates for city council had instead run for city commissioner, I think we could have won that one.
Best Way To Boost Turnout Is To Increase Motivation
There are no shortage of things that can be done to boost turnout, but the most important is to increase motivation.
That is helped by strong party organization and strong party missions, which are difficult to sustain over time.
There was a massive turnout for President in 2004, and there will likely be a minimal turnout for Mayor in 2007. It is obviously not the case that the process became more complicated or the voters became more confused over the last three years.
Michael Nutter has tried to increase motivation by both noting the importance of the statewide judicial races and saying he will be stronger as Mayor if he receives a good vote. He has over $2 million cash on hand as of the last filing report, but I have not yet seen any evidence that this money is being spent on commercials.
Nutter faces the same dilemma as all Philadelphia candidates do in general elections: is money spent when victory is virtually 100% certain a wise investment, or is it better to save the money to have a guaranteed war chest for future contested primaries?
Similarly, in legislative races where control of the House can depend on a small number of votes outside of Philadelphia (a switch of 15 votes in West Chester would have meant that John Perzel would have been re-elected Speaker of the House), the tendency of many people, including myself, is to spend money raised in these swing areas in the interest of maximizing our abilities to be an influential part of a majority coalition.
But the long-range interest of the Democratic Party is well-served by strong voter turnout year after year, election after election. There has to be a lot of thought and effort given to how we generate turnout election after election, year after year.
The old model of an army of patronage workers with ghost jobs or jobs with little actual work and generous leave policies is dead, and we need a new burst of steady citizen activism to replace it.
agreed Karen
I actually made teh same point in the original post above:
I am all for taking advantage of the opportunity to elect someone progressive to the Commissioner's office, but they would have to promise to dismantle it if we are to take them seriously idealogically. It's also worth pointing out that there are about 25 state house seats in Philadelphia alone that young challengers should investigate--and they are a lot easier to win than a city-wide race for Commissioner.
Is this really a city issue?
Expecting the Philadelphia City Commissioner's Office to solve the nationwide problem of low voter turnout is a bit ridiculous. As you even acknowledge, the changes you want need to happen on the state level (or even federal).
* Another idea: why don’t we take advantage of Wireless Philly and create a secure, online voter database so that Philadelphians could go to any polling location in the city rather than just the one in their ward and division? People live busy lives, and using technology to make tasks like voting simpler is a no-brainer.
This is a really, really bad idea. What happens if the network goes down? Do you cancel the election and reschedule it? How will people verify who they are? They'll need to bring photo ID, which discriminates against people who do not have it, or we'll have to issue bar coded or swipe card voter cards, which people could then forget to bring with them. There would also be so many more ways to commit voter fraud with this system. The current low tech system works quite well. Let's not mess with it. And if you're too busy to vote at your polling place, get an absentee ballot.
Until the State Leg funds vote by mail state wide, the City Commissioner could mail everyone an absentee ballot. Doing that will probably cost a few million, so something will have to be defunded elsewhere in the City Budget to pay for it. If we could find a way to do that, that would probably boost turnout.
it was my experience that finding polling places is a major issue
The state has had a search engine for a number of years that locates it for you: https://www.pavoterservices.state.pa.us/Pages/PollingPlaceInfo.aspx
What is a disgrace, is how the City Commissioner has not heard of the internet. Not only do they not link to that on their webpage, but they don't post a list of all the polling places and the corresponding wards and divisions. And for the record, their webpage is completely blank.
Frankly, the cause and solution to lower voter turn out goes far beyond sending out reminders and advertising. You make it sound like there are a 100,000 Philadelphians who would vote but that the current system makes it too hard for them. That's clearly not the case.
can we set our sights higher?
As I have said twice now, I am not wedded to any one idea. And Tim raises good points that voting at a location outside of your home division means that voting machines would have to become a whole lot more dynamic than they are now. It's also true that networks can go down. However, think about ATM machines which rely on cpmputer networks to do just about everything and they work reasonably well, enough so that we can take money out anywhere in the world.
This is not my area of expertise though so I realize that any idea I posit could be a total bust. But that's kind of my point: the people whose job this is, and it's been Tartaglione's for over 30 years, are not exhibiting much creativity.
As I said in my original post, a lot of these are state issues. But the state won't ever move to make changes unless local election experts push for them. And again, I see little eveidence that is happening in Philadelphia.
I also agree with Mark, that motivating voters based on issues and party loyalty is important, perhaps the most important thing to do, too. Once again, as has been discussed ad nauseum here, lots of us don't think our Democratic party is doing that.
Sending postcards to voters won't overcome voter disenfranchisement, but the cost is so minimal. I am not sure that I named a number, I do think there are easily 20-30,000 Philadelphians would vote if they were reminded better and if the system worked better for them. In a city where 11-20% voter turnout is not unusual in non-presidential and non-mayoral years, an increase of 20,000 votes would be huge.
It's easy to point to elected leaders like Mayor and Council and ask them to solve every problem. But at a routine, administrative level, we can look at other city departments and other elected leaders and hold them to higher standards. We can demand more and we should. In the case of the Commissioner's office, as much credit as one has to give them for running routine, peaceful elections, we can also ask them to do a whole lot more.
Is this really urgent?
It's easy to point to elected leaders like Mayor and Council and ask them to solve every problem. But at a routine, administrative level, we can look at other city departments and other elected leaders and hold them to higher standards. We can demand more and we should. In the case of the Commissioner's office, as much credit as one has to give them for running routine, peaceful elections, we can also ask them to do a whole lot more.
Council and the Mayor are the right people to look to on this issue since the City Commissioners cannot take it upon themselves to increase their budget size.
The bigger issue, is that our City's resources are extremely limited, and we need to be thoughtful about where money is spent. Sending out reminder post cards may only cost a few hundred thousand dollars, but to pay for it, something is going to need to be defunded elsewhere in the city budget. Now I'm not saying that voter turnout is not important and something we need to ignore, but it is among the least urgent issues that the city faces, and we should not take it upon ourselves to do something the state or federal government should be doing. Can you really justify the need to develop an ATM like voting system that lets voters vote at any polling place while we average over a murder a day?
Again, I'm not saying that voter turnout isn't an important issue, but demanding that the City Commissioner try to solve it is silly. You should be talking about what the PA Department of State can do.
Don't follow the logic
The biggest problem with the City Commissioner's office from a budget perspective is that we pay three people to do the job that one person does in every other county in the state. So reforms to the office could be paid for with a charter change that gets rid of the elected offices and replaces them with one appointed office.
Is this urgent? I dunno. I definitely think the current Commissioners could do a lot more. It would not cost much of anything to print polling place information on utility bills or to lobby Comcast and SEPTA and other quasi-public/private agencies to contribute to ad campaigns to promote voting.
For bigger reforms, I am not sure if I would say that upping the budget is worth it compared to other urgent spending needs. On the other hand, there are about 600,000 (give or take 100,000) voting households in the city. It would cost $156,000 per election to send all these folks a postcard (and that's without a bulk discount). In a city with an annual budget of about $3.4 billion, sending postcards to all registered voters would represent a .01% annual increase in spending.
I don't really follow your logic though. Do you disagree with me that the Commissioner's office could do more? If not, what you are saying makes sense: if it's don't broke, don't fix it. But if you do think the Commisioner's office as it is currently Chartered could do more, than what do you think should be improved?
I don't really follow your
I don't really follow your logic though. Do you disagree with me that the Commissioner's office could do more? If not, what you are saying makes sense: if it's don't broke, don't fix it. But if you do think the Commisioner's office as it is currently Chartered could do more, than what do you think should be improved?
I have not read the Charter on what the job of the Commissioners is, but I imagine it is to administer elections, manage voter registration, and related matters. I think that the Commissioners actually do this pretty well. Having observed elections in other counties and states, and worked as a judge of elections in Philadelphia, I think that the system we have works pretty well. Complaints on election day are typically pretty limited.
If the Office of the City Commissioner wants to try to improve voter turn out, good for them. But I'm not in favor of giving them more money to try and solve this problem.
A classic problem we have in Philadelphia, is that every time something goes wrong, we create a commission and expand an officials powers instead of utilizing the tools that are currently available. Given that low turnout is a problem that affects all Pennsylvania counties and all political parties, before beginning to discuss how to spend money in Philadelphia to improve turnout, let's lobby the state legislature to take action on this. And what I personally think we should push the state to do, is allow everyone to vote from home using an absentee ballot like is done in Washington State. Everyone should be mailed an absentee request form.
So let's first talk about what the state can do before asking Philadelphia to try and solve the problem.
that's logical
i just disagree. All of the 67 counties get some support from the state to support voter work. We are just dumb that we spend munincipal money to fund the salaries and the patronage needs of three election officers (in the form of commissoners) vs. 1 appointed staffer.
I agree that vote by mail is a huge change that would greatly improve voter turnout. But once again, if county election officials are not asking the state to move on it, practically speaking, I doubt folks in Harrisburg will do anything.
And, one more time, there are plenty of cheap and easy things the City Commissioners could do to make voting easier.
I am happy to agree to disagree, but for the record, let me point you to the City Commissioner's website which contains their mission statement. I'd like to direct your attention to the last two items on that statement:
What is the problem here?
Anyone who reads YPP knows that Ray and I sometimes have disagreements, especially about issues on the cutting edge of public policy in this city.
But what exactly is controversial about having the City Commissioners encourage voting? Sure, the state can do things as well. But, my God, we elect three people and pay them a good salary to work on, among other things, turnout. Is there some reason to not ask them to do that job?
Vote by mail is controversial because it means we dont' all vote the same day. It and the idea of llowing people to vote anywhere in the city might, as Lou points out, diminish the communal and neighborhood base of electinos (and not so incidnetally would surely reduce the influence of committee people and progressive neighborhood activists on elections).
But as Ray has pointed out, there is much that the commissioners can do to encourage voting. And, unless you are a Republican and DON'T WANT POOR AND WORKING CLASS PEOPLE TO VOTE, I don't see what is the problem.
Lord knows, since the "progressive reforms" of the 1920s, our cities and states have done an enormous amount to discourage voting in the name of eliminating fraud. Isn't that rationale enough to do what we can to encourage voting?
I'm not going to belabor the point. Instead, go to this blog post, which I wrote right after Ray, Jen Murphy and I (and a few other folks) met with Commissioner Howard to encourage him to adopt some of the ideas about which Ray has written.
Need to establish why to vote
Why there are good reasons to have same day voter registration, and other ideas that have worked in other states. There needs to be a belief that taking part in the political process will actually mean something.
I have had the pleasure to met many good and solid elected officials such as Tony Payton, John Sabatina Jr., Carol Campbell,Bob Brady,Chaka Fattah,Brian O'Neill,among others, and if expectations hold true soon to be elected officials, Curtis Jones, Maria Quinones, Bill Green, David Oh.
In other cities, there are reasons why people are active, because they have had the chance to believe and see the city give back, like in Chicago, there is still a free zoo, and some bus rides, many states have something similar to the REACH scholarship that Tony is introducing, School Buildings are actually kept up to a reasonable code, people feel welcomed to governmental buildings instead of scrounging around for ID, public transportation is reasonably priced, parking in town.
More than just officials, we have to recognize that there are plenty of people in the City Government that work hard every day to change the face of the city such as Tumar Alexander, Lance Haver, Anthony Radwanski, Malik Aziz,among others.
We need to reach across job titles or expected differences, there are plenty of items that I have learned from men from Local 98 to the United Way, and I can never thank Tom Cronin and Linda Rhym enough for the experience and chance to learn from them.
People need a reason to believe and be supportive and included in the process, I thank Lou Agre for taking the time to write, and we can see how Roxborough and Manayunk looks because people are active, attention is paid.
Hopefully it can be spread across the city where people can feel safe to walk down the block, and talk with a neighbor, and do the things that people talk about in the "Good Ol Days" once again.
We need to sleep and we need to eat too
David, you are totally right. One huge factor in declining voter participation is a lack of faith and interest in in the role of elected officials in making concrete changes in our lives. It's something I have personally tried to do, as have many other people on this blog. SIMULTANEOUSLY there are really simple things the City Commissioners' office could do better and should do better TOO. This is not an either/or kind of thing.
Old Philly Politics could cost us the White House
One scary fact should motivate any reasonable Philadelphia Democrat to work to improve turnout: Rudy Giuliani's poll numbers in PA.
Despite 08 election indicators generally breaking the Democrats' way at the national level, the ghoulish President of 9/11 still leads most Democrats in head-to-head contests in the state. Hillary's diaphanous 2% lead over him here--in the last poll I saw--reveals how close things might be.
As Philadelphians Against Santorum taught us (or reminded us), Philadelphia turnout is critical to statewide Democratic victories. It's the whole ballgame in so, so many elections. And, remarkably, this incredibly critical issue still seems lost on the Commissioners.
The old way of (not) doing things in Philly is no longer good enough.
Progressives need to get demanding as 2008 approaches. Philly progressives need to demand a better effort from the Commissioners' office to raise turnout.
I like your postcard idea, Ray. Any other tricks we can learn from other municipalities?
"Old Philly "Turnout is not the problem
Philadelphians voted in record numbers in both the Gore and Kerry elections. Much of that was due to City Committee. If Cleveland and/or Miami had a City Committee as good as ours we would be blaming President Kerry for the War in Iraq. During the 2004 election I ,like many, Committee People went through my neighborhood dragging out the last of the voters. By 7:30 every Democrat had voted.
It's funny that the darling of the so-called 'progressives', John Dean focuses on party building, yet when one gets built in this City so-called 'progressives' spend so much time knocking it down.
Rather be governed by Penn's faculty than the City Committee
The City Committee does a great job during general elections, especially for Presidential and gubernatorial elections. The problem is that our elections for local offices do not fall in the same years, nor do the primaries, when many of our elections are contested and a higher voter turnout could change the outcome in many cases.
It's undeniable that either a low or a targeted voter turnout benefits many people whose job it is to turn out the vote. If a ward leader endorses a candidate for city office, or is running him/herself, they have no interest in turning out every Democrat in their neighborhood. Instead, they turn out voters who they think will reliably support their candidate.
City Committee also makes strategic decisions about where to spend get-out-the-vote money all of the time. In an election year where the mayoral vote and the majority of the council seats look like sure bets, why would the party spend millions of dollars to win a few judicial seats? Instead, you save that money and energy for 2008.
The party is not the least bit interested in voter turnout in the abstract. It is interested in turnout that benefits the strategic interest of the party. This is fine. It is part of what political parties do, and arguably should do. But it is not what a bipartisan city commissioner's office should do.
As you've told us many times, your job is to get Democrats elected -- it is not to create small-d democracy. Most progressives are committed to democracy, i.e., to government that engages the participation of and works to benefit as many people as possible, not just those running for office. This is why party-building fundamentally means different things for different Democrats
--Tim
Penn's Faculty?
Apparently you have not had recent contact with Penn's faculty. Had you said Temple, LaSalle or St. Joes you would have been more persuasive.
I work with Penn's faculty
I work with Penn's faculty every day. And I am that unimpressed by the City Committee.
I would also rather be governed by the first hundred names in the phone book than the City Committee.
--Tim
No One Is Governed By The Democratic City Committee
No one is governed by the Democratic City Committee. The Democratic City Committee recommends candidates for public office, and for governmental positions.
These recommendations are considered by whomever they are made to and sometimes they are followed and sometimes they are not followed. It is highly rare for a Democratic City Chairman to suggest to any elected official how they should vote on any issue; it happens about once a decade in the legislature in my experience.
The Democratic City Committee is in the business of electing Democrats to public office. It is a political body, not a governing body. The vast majority of ward leaders are not elected officials, and and the vast majority of elected officials are not ward leaders.
Indeed, as time goes on, fewer and fewer ward leaders are elected officials because the demands on the time of elected officials are ever-increasing.
The problem that progressive organizations have in recruiting people for party office is that, when looked at closely and accurately, party offices absorb a lot of time and have only very limited resources and functions.
Sorry if anyone missed the joke
For a while, Lou Agre liked to sign his posts, "I would rather be ruled by the first 200 people in the Boston phone book than the faculty of Harvard," sometimes replacing Boston with Philadelphia and Harvard with Penn.
Ironically, it's a quote by that stalwart progressive William F. Buckley, Jr.
--Tim
And for anyone who didn't get THAT joke
William F. Buckley is an archconservative who wrote "God and Man at Yale" and founded the National Review.
--Tim
I'm sad about Lou
Lou, we don't know each other very well, but I go no beef with you.
I have had a chance to get to know Congressman Brady though and I like him. I agree that the City Committee does a good job getting out the vote. I think the fact that State Committee will now be offering you guys access to VAN is a really good thing and I hope that Committeepeople will take advantage of that enhanced technology to run really good canvassses to get out votes.
However, Lou, get real re: primaries. Tim hits the nail on the head above which is that the party does not turn out people in primaries like it does in statewide generals.
That issue aside Lou, remember that this post was written NOT about the party or the city committee. I was talking in this post about parties, I am talking about an elected position: City Commissioner.
For the zillionith time, an elected position as dictated under the charter paid for by our tax dollars must be held to hhigher standards than it currently is.
Addressing Sam's point: I don't have many more tricks up my sleeve. But think about this, election research shows that one of the most effective methods to turn out voters--especially infrequents--is a sandwich. So that's like 3 door knocks, four phone calls and six pieces of mail or something close.
Why can't the Commissioners' do robo-calls? The city owns the technology to do them?
Want to talk about job creation? What if the Commissioners' hired canvassers at election time to get out the vote?
Howard Dean Is the Democratic Chairman, John Dean The Author
It is easy to get Howard Dean and John Dean mixed up because both are national figures who have been leading critics of the Bush Administration. I have mixed them up on occasion myself.John Dean is the senior national figure, while Howard Dean is the higher ranking current political figure.
Howard Dean is the former Presidential candidate and current Democratic National Chairman. John Dean is the former Nixon counsel whose testimony was vital in securing Nixon's impeachment. In a series of books, John Dean has provided intensive research on Republican misdeeds in the Nixon, Bush, and other administrations. John Dean's conclusion that the Bush Administration has been far worse than any other administration in eroding fundamental American liberties and in failing to govern effectively is incredibly well documented in his writings.
Distinction in Purpose
Is the purpose of the City Commissioner's office to facilitate elections? To do so smoothly with reliable vote counts and dipsute resolution. Perhaps some voter education.
Or, is it to push voter turnout relative to elections?
Really, it seems to me to be the former. The later seems to be a purely party function. I'd say, you get into a pretty dicey area when an alleged neutral agency starts making cause to push turnout.
That being said, the Commissioners should not just sit around and collect paychecks until election day. In terms of voter education, a much better job can be done by the office.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
From the City Commissioners
From the City Commissioners website:
* maintaining the accuracy and currency of the data, images, and paper documents in our three files for approximately 970,000 registered eligible voters for Philadelphia County;
* preparing District Register-Pollbooks for use in determining voter eligibility at the polling place on Election Day;
* maintaining boundary maps and descriptions for the 1,681 voting Divisions in Philadelphia;
* locating accessible and suitable polling places within each of the City's 1,681 voting districts;
* training, and processing the payroll for, approximately 8,400 polling place officials;
* processing candidate nomination petitions;
* preparing and packaging various election materials required by polling place officials;
* preparing up to 1,681 different ballot configurations in accordance with ballot certifications;
* maintenance, service, and preparation of approximately 3,500 electronic voting machines;
* processing Absentee and Alternative Ballots;
* reporting Unofficial Election Results for Philadelphia County;
* processing provisional ballots;
* certifying Official Election Returns for Philadelphia County;
* informing candidates, political party committees, the media and the general public of the voter registration and election process; and,
* encouraging Philadelphians to register and vote.
It seems like there is a lot of room for interpretation in the final two bullets. A lot of the things that Ray and others have suggested could fall under those categories. It's not so much that the Commissioners should be driving up Democratic turnout, but that will happen naturally if it's easier for people to vote and get involved in the process.
---
Check out my website!
The Message That Could Be Paid For By Commissioners Is Limited
The message that could be paid for with governmental funds is limited.
A political campaign can urge people to vote to end the war in Iraq, to increase aid to Philadelphia, to increase funding for college students, etc.
The City Commissioners can only urge people to vote when using governmental funds in non-political terms that contain no political messages.
Marshall McLuhan famously said that the medium is the message, and I have no doubt that here or there some people will vote if they are merely notified by a robocall that there is an election tomorrow.
But many more people will be encouraged to vote if they are given a message as to why their vote is important, and only political campaigns and political activists can really do that.
Commissioner's can be facilitators
I agree that Commissioner's obviously cannot make directly partisan appeals to increase voter turnout. However, they can certainly make it easier for grassroots organizations, such as unions or groups like Liberty City, to mobilize their respective memberships.
Currently, it is nearly impossible to get electronic copies of the most recent election returns. This makes it more difficult for political organizers to do their work. The Commissioner's office should make it easier for community groups and political organizations to do their work. This will increase turnout and generally be good for everyone.
---
Check out my website!
independent commissioners
As long as their fates are tied to and dependent upon the leaders of Philadelphia's two political parties, City Commissioners can't help but find themselves in the business of preserving the status quo.
I like the suggestion of appointing commissioners, though it would take a change in State law. I have also heard suggestions that commissioners be required to register nonpartisan either upon winning their election or upon filing as a candidate, though I am not so sure political allegiances would magically disappear just because they have a new voter registration card.
At the very least, I think we should prohibit commissioners from holding elected office within any party (committeeperson, ward leader, treasurer, etc.) and from campaigning for or contributing to candidates for other offices. It may, in the end, all come down to money. If we keep commissioners from being able to accept sizable contributions from people, then we have removed one major barrier to political independence and some real changes in the commissioners office.
I would love to see us use the office of city commissioner as a test case for full public financing of elections. What better place to start than election commissioner?
It's a political office
I do not agree that Commissioners should be prohibited from holding office within a party or organization. That is why there is a minority commissioner. It's a political office and should be treated as such. If you want to make the position appointed, I'm fine with that-- but don't unreasonably tie the hands of elected officials.
---
Check out my website!
agreed
They are political offices. I think it might be good for everyone if they weren't as much as they currently seem to be. Ward leaders have an even greater interest in preserving the status quo (though Lou has been known to shake things up in the 21st every once inna while). I think by taking the partisanship down a notch, the result might be more voter registration drives, same day registartion and other innovations previously discussed by Ray.
And for the life of me, I still can't figure out why the Commissioners can't work with PGW to put a card that says "Election Day is Nov. 6th. You Polling Place is located at 1234 Pine Street" in every utility bill leading up to the elections. Or, to cut costs, let's print it on the bill itself.
voter contact increases turn out: it's a fact
as Ben and myself have both established in printing the Commissioner's mission statement from their own website, turn is a part of the job description. It's the law.
That said, I do have some expertise in voter turn out, and yes Mark Cohen is right, turn-out related to a party or candidate can be more effective that generic turn out. However, there is no reason why the Commissioner's could not conduct an online survey, maybe in conjunction with the Daily News, identify areas of interest to citizens and then ask candidates for office to provide bullet points that characterize their stance and those issues and then disseminate.
There are a number of studies and other bodies of evidence that show this kind of effort would have a demonstrable impact on turn out--it would be increased.
If we have an office that is paid for by munincipal dollars, that is chartered in part to drive up voter turnout, why would we not want to hold that offic accountable to do so?
If people have an issue with money and politics and the nature of partisan politics, here is an easy solution that is already in place, institutionalized and codified to change the nature of local elections.