.


[X] HOME PAGE (Main Menu)
. . [X] CIVIC PROJECTS MENU



PROS AND CONS OF NON-PARTISAN PRIMARY ELECTIONS FOR SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATES


CONTENTS
[. .] Introduction
[X] *** Five Matching Arguments For and Against Primary Elections
[X] *** Other Arguments Against Primary Elections

INTRODUCTION
On October 5, 2004, the Columbus School Board adopted a resolution that authorized the Franklin County Board of Elections to hold a non-partisan primary election in the Columbus School District when more than two candidates per contested seat filed for a position on the School Board. This primary-election option became available in 2004 when Senate Bill 79 was signed into law. Locally, the law change was promoted by The Columbus Dispatch. The idea was to remove Bill Moss from the Columbus School Board by using political party's sample ballots in "non-partisan" primary elections. That is why S.B. 79 was called the "Dump-Bill-Moss Law".

Back then, the proponents of non-partisan primary school-board elections offered five justifications for the change. The Dispatch 8/23/10 editorial reiterated four of the five reasons used in 2004 to justify a non-partisan primary. These were arguments #1, #3, #4, and #5 discussed below. These five justifications are listed individually along with an associated counter argument. After this exchange, additional against-primary election arguments are given.

FIVE MATCHING ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST PRIMARY ELECTIONS
Five pro-primary arguments with an associated anti-primary argument are given below. Following this point-counterpoint format are additional anti-primary arguments that cover significant issues not raised by primary-election advocates. Because this dialogue took place years ago, the term "reform" refers to what was at that time a new concept---a non-partisan primary election for school board members.

  1. For Primary -- A large number of candidates on the ballot in a November general election confuses voters. (A primary election would narrow the field to a more manageable number of candidates in a general election.)
    Against Primary -- Regardless of whether "a large number of candidates" run in a primary election or general election, the voter will be equally "confused". Additionally, the pro-primary-election advocates gave no evidence that voters have been "confused" in past general elections involving numerous candidates. If reducing voter confusion is a real concern, using only general elections in November would be the way to go because general elections typically receive more press coverage. Also, civic groups like the League of Women Voters provide voter information only in general elections. Accordingly, "narrowing the field" is not a good reason to hold two elections when one will do.

  2. For Primary -- Primary elections would weed out the non-serious candidates prior to the general election.
    Against Primary -- Anyone who takes the time to collect some 400 voters' signatures on a petition will be a seriously-interested candidate. People with creative ideas, but who are not good at fund raising, should not be labeled "non-serious candidates". Accordingly, "weeding out" is not a good reason to hold two elections when one will do.

  3. For Primary -- Primary elections would make it harder for a single-issue activist to get elected.
    Against Primary -- The pro-primary election people provided no evidence to support this claim. In fact, logically, a single-issue candidate, with a supporting group, should have more success in a poorly-attended May primary election than in a well-attended November general election. Accordingly, eliminating "single-issue activist" is not a good reason to hold two elections when one will do.

  4. For Primary -- When a large number of candidates run for the same office, the winning candidates receive only a small percent of the total vote, and thus none can claim strong public support.
    Against Primary -- Close elections always leave the numerical winner with no claim for "strong" public support. For example, let us assume one candidate for mayor receives 50.5% and the other candidate receives 49.5%. Clearly, the 50.5% candidate won, but there was no showing of "strong public support".

    In multi-seat races, such as a four-seat school-board election, numerical winners will always receive a modest percent of the votes. With eight (8) candidates running for four seats, the votes per candidate will average 12.5%. With 16 candidates running, the average vote per candidate will be 6.25% Of course, the more popular candidates will receive more than the average. Even a popular candidate with 15% of the vote, could not claim "strong" public support. Thus, multi-seat elections inherently yield a small percentage of the votes for each candidate. Because winning candidates, in multi-seat races, are seldom able to claim strong public support, this is not a good reason to hold two elections when one will do.

  5. For Primary -- "This reform would also ensure that incumbents no longer would be guaranteed a continued presence on the board, while talented newcomers would have a better chance of serving the district." (letter in the Columbus Dispatch from Andrew Ginther, May 22, 2004.)
    Against Primary -- Proponents of primary elections claim that independent incumbents will no longer have a "guaranteed continued presence" when running in a primary election against political-party endorsed "talented newcomers". It is true that political-party endorsed candidates will dominate in a primary election. However, the proponents did not explain how voters will distinguish between "talented newcomers" and un-talented newcomers. Accordingly, removing incumbents from office on a blind gamble is not a good reason to hold two elections when one will do.

OTHER ARGUMENTS AGAINST PRIMARY ELECTIONS
The above FOR-PRIMARY and AGAINST-PRIMARY dialogue covers only some of the issues involved in switching to a non-partisan primary election. Additional down-side arguments against this reform follow:


[X] HOME PAGE (Main Menu)
. . [X] CIVIC PROJECTS MENU

Address:
Bill Buckel
1641 Hess Blvd.
Columbus, OH 43212
. Ph. 614--488-8963

Notice: This web site does not have an e-mail return address.
URL = http://www.billbuckel.com
This page last update on: August 30, 2010