5 common sense ideas for better Charlotte governing
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Duke-Energy-building-from-Morehead
The Axios Charlotte has previewed the upcoming local elections and addressed issues related to the populace, such as lagging voter registration, the lack of connectivity with candidates and issues, and an apathetic approach to participating in the process.
But the issues are not limited to the voter base.
There are changes that can be made to the process that would provide a better government and voting process for Charlotte.
(1) Eliminate partisan primaries
On the local level, there is no reason to artificially ensure that both a Democrat and a Republican are represented in the general election.
Remove the party affiliations from the local ballots and have the best performers advance to the general election.
The way it’s done now essentially disenfranchises voters, particularly the registered unaffiliated voters. In the most recent tally, 29 percent of registered voters in Mecklenburg County are registered as unaffiliated.
In North Carolina, the percentage of registered unaffiliated voters rose from 18 percent to 27 percent between 2004 and 2014.
On September 15, there are only two ballots available to voters in Charlotte, for the Democratic ticket and the Republican one, which completely alienates nearly one-third of those who have taken the time to register to vote. The counter I hear to that is the nonsensical, “Well, you can just pick and choose whichever party you want to vote for.” What if somebody likes the message and wants to help get a Democrat running for council through the primary, but also wants to help get a Republican mayoral candidate through the primary? The message is just, “Oh well, too bad, better luck next time.”
People register as unaffiliated for a reason and forcing that rising segment into strictly partisan primaries sends the wrong message about the process. It tells a voter who does not want to fit into a party’s limited box that they must choose a party or stay home.
But when voters stay home, politicians, election officials, media members, and Facebook commenters bellyache about the lack of voter participation in primaries without looking in the mirror to see that the process is a big part of the problem and not the solution.
(2) No run-off elections
A run-off election is the most pointless election in any part of the country.
It’s quite simple, if you get the most votes, you win. If you don’t, you lose.
The only time a run-off should be held is to break a tie. Somebody receiving 39% of the vote, with the second and third place candidates receiving 35% and 26% respectively is not a tie. The top vote getter should win and the runner-up should not get another crack at it simply because they were a runner-up. That’s the purpose of a primary.
When the votes are tallied in a primary or general election, the winners should win and the losers lose. Run-offs go against everything elections should stand for.
(3) Charlotte should have a strong mayor
Currently, Charlotte is the fourth largest city in the country without a strong mayor. The salary for the mayor is in the low $20,000s and is considered a part-time job, which opens the door to secretive stock payouts, alleged no-show jobs, and outright bribery and corruption.
Having a strong mayor would not end all alleged misdeeds, but it would establish a legitimate “the buck stops here” position that would force the holder of the office to be accountable for his or her actions and the actions of all the other civil servants of Charlotte.
With the manager-council style of government, accountability for a city of over 800,000 is lacking. Mayor Dan Clodfelter can say, “Hey, don’t blame me, I’m just a part-time employee. Look over there at Ron Carlee.” Ron Carlee, the city manager, can say, “Hey, voters can’t blame me, I wasn’t elected into this position.” City council can say, “Hey, I only have 1/11 of the power here. Look over there at that other part-time employee, Dan Clodfelter.” And around and around we go.
Including Pat McCrory as he finished his final term, Charlotte has had five mayors in the last six years. Charlotte is in a critical growth and development stage and needs stability at the top. Having a strong mayor will go a long way in maintaining that stability, along with…
(4) Four-year terms for mayor
So the mayor of Charlotte wears many hats. When a mayor has to dedicate just as much time to campaigning as actual mayoral duties, the system is flawed.
Creating a full-time position for four years would condense those hats into one big one (possibly styled after the extremely fashionable Axios Charlotte hat). Having a full-time mayor on a four-year term would properly put pressure on the voters to get out and vote and take time to figure out who the best candidate is in the field.
(5) Term limits
The mayor and city council do not currently have term limits. This leads to being elected by name only and simply going through the motions because some elected officials know that they will be in place after the next election, unless they get hit with a scandal.
Term limits would remove that comfort zone and force politicians to serve the constituents in a timely manner. The main argument against term limits is that they would unfairly limit the candidate pool. If our great city of Charlotte cannot regularly find enough people to fill the mayor’s seat and 11 council seats, then excluding career politicians from maintaining a comfortable spot is the least of our worries.