Spoiling

Years ago, back in 2003, I ran for Tribal Council. The 270 votes I received in 2002 were something to build on, or at least that's what many told me. More importantly, given the incredible unpopularity and maybe even infamy that surrounded one Council incumbent that year, one seat seemed up for grabs. There was no way he would be re-elected, because too many people disliked him.
Now there is an old Monty Python movie that came out in the early 1970's, called "The Life of Brian". It is about a young man born at the same time and within the same area as Jesus, leading to a lifetime of confusion. One part of that movie stands out more now than when I viewed it as a teenager, the fueding rebel movements in old Israel. The Judean People's Front and the Peoples' Front of Judea all have the same goal, to destroy the occupying Romans. The problem is they also hate each other, and both break into the Roman stronghold intent on assassinating the Emperor, only to run into one another, scuffle, and botch the dual efforts, while the Roman guards arrive at the end of the melee to stare confusedly at bodies everywhere. Of course it is all depicted in the usual zany Monty Python comical style, not to be taken too seriously, if at all.
Enough time has passed since 2003 that I can honestly see the parallels between that old film and what happened during the Tribal Council elections that year. So many people wanted to see a certain Council member gone. But his support was more united than the opposition, and he was re-elected with the lowest vote total in close to a decade. You see, 17 people decided to run that year. I was one of them, and fell short by 40 votes.
Ultimately, some good did come of that debacle of an election. We ran a much more unified and organized campaign the following year, sweeping all three seats, though ousting two Council members who, while many might argue were ineffective, were harmless compared to some of the sitting members not up for re-election. It has been a roller-coaster ride since then.
But what 2003 introduced for me was the concept of a spoiler in elections, a Ralph Nader or Ross Perot if you will. There are candidates who might make a decent showing, but in the end their biggest impact is siphoning votes away from people who have a better shot of being elected. In times when you need serious change, the spoiler does more harm than good. They aren't the villains who spark calls for sweeping change, but they are obstacles.
Which brings me to this year's election. This may be the most uncertain I've ever been about an outcome. I hear the calls for change, but like in 2003, way too many people are answering that call all at once. It seems unlikely the incumbents will earn the record votes they did three years ago. Having 18 candidates all but assures that. But with 18 people in the race, votes get split, and a person might be elected with maybe less than 400 votes, which has happened only once since 2003.
I respect whatever the members decide. But I do believe we need to a run-off election or something similar. I don't generally take much stock in rumors, but if this year we really do have people running just to dilute the vote, then we've got to change our present system. Sooner or later, we've got to realize that getting leaders elected with a majority vote is a good thing. I can't be the first to think so.