I am talking of course about a primary election, or run-off, or whatever. Watching 18 people vie for three Tribal Council seats during the 2009 elections, one of the highest totals ever, split the votes. Our voter turnout to start is embarrassing. But watching elections go on without any candidates ever able to obtain a majority vote is more so, especially considering we are a democracy.
What we talked about Monday November 2 was how to conduct an election where candidates are elected with respectable vote totals. It's quite possible that we may never get a Council member to win and be elected with a majority of votes. The question is though, what is the solution.
A run-off election seems to be the most logical answer, as primaries are really when political parties endorse candidates. The follow-up question is how would the run-off work? To what kind of number would we reduce the candidate field? Our election administrator threw out the idea of reducing the candidate field to six, or double the number of at-large spots. I've some reservations about that, because it would seem to be encouraging a two-party system, which right now is being questioned even on a national level. Plus it might disenfranchise voters who cast their ballots for candidates not making the cut, though that problem will exist in a run-off system regardless.
This is a good case of where there appears to be consensus that a problem exists, but arriving at a solution is harder when you roll up your sleeves and get to work. Personally, I like the idea of narrowing the field down to nine. But I'm sure even that would be problematic. What if only 10 people run? Seems kind of funny to hold a run-off to eliminate one candidate.
One Council member likes the notion of elections being held per Council seat, almost like running for a district position. The problem I see with that is some seats might be more hotly contested or have a bigger vote turnout than others, meaning that second place in one election could be more than first place in others, kind of like how in sports the team with the second-best record in the league could fail to make the playoffs because they play in the same division as the first-place team. Of course, such a system would be perfect if one's intent is to unseat a Council member. Simply stack the ballot with tons of candidates and you can dilute the vote.
We plan to survey the membership on what they might like to see, specifically if there is an overall desire to change how elections are run. Guess that buys us some time, which is good because I sure don't have the answer...yet.
2 comments:
Chris,
In most ways, I do not see the way your CTGR Tribal Elections are ran as a problem.
What I see as a problem though is for the CTGR Tribal Council to be concerned about whether or not to have a Primary Election.
Your Tribe already has Tribal Council Elections every year. These elections take up about two and half months out of 12 months each year for sitting Tribal Council Members to work on getting re-elected.
Now lets assume that a Primary Election Campaign time runs for two and a half months each year. Also, lets assume that sitting Tribal Council Members win their Primary Elections and they go on to campaign for the General Council Election. Now your Tribe would be looking at five months out of 12 months each year that sitting Tribal Council Members would be campaigning for re-election. This system would detract them from the work that each was elected to do and also detract them from various family obligations. A similar scenario could take place for any one who wanted to win a sit on the Tribal Council.
In my opinion, for anyone winning a Primary Election and then going on to campaign for a General Election, it means five months out of 12 months being in the campaign mode. I would think that would be extremely stressful for the candidate and also the family and the job.
I feel that your Tribe would benefit in the long run if Tribal Council Elections were held every two or three years instead of each and every year. However, I do believe that would take an amendment to the CTGR Constitution.
I personally believe that the CTGR Tribal Council has a whole lot of other things to think and be concerned about other than how to have a Tribal Council Primary Election. Who really cares if the top three vote getters in a Tribal Council Election win with 1,000 votes, 700 votes or 300 votes or less. The bottom line is the three top vote getters have won a seat on the CTGR Tribal Council and to me that should be what counts.
Let’s get back on resolving more important Tribal Membership issues such as:
> Enrollment for those who should be CTGR Tribal Members but who can’t enroll because:
a) they do not have a parent on a Grand Ronde Roll at the time of their birth, yet they have one or more ancestors on the CTGR Restoration Roll of 1984; or
b) they do not have an ancestor on the CTGR Restoration Roll of 1984, yet they have ancestors on CTGR Rolls before Termination in 1956.
> Reducing Tribal Government expenditures in each and every Department, including the Tribal Council, without reducing benefits that each and every Tribal Member “should be” receiving.
> Increasing Per Capita for each and every Tribal Member to the allowable 45 %, instead of putting the Per Capita distribution last after most of the Casino dividend has been allocated somewhere else.
In closing I want to say that it is just too bad that the “majority” of the CTGR Tribal Membership do not speak out like they should.
Keep smiling!
Mary Ellen
Hmm...well I must disagree with some of your points. The Election Board has taken the initiative to get before us on this issue. So it would appear that some of them see it as a problem too.
Until we see a major overhaul of the Constitution, one that makes it easier for Tribal members to have greater authority in the decision-making process of our governance, almost all major decisions will be made by the Tribal Council including per capita and enrollment.
So trying to come up with a better way to elect Tribal leaders that more accurately reflects the will of the membership, by making sure they win with a higher percentage of votes as opposed to winning out in a watered down field, is not really a "problem". It matters. A lot.
I hope we follow through on our commitment to conduct a survey on this issue. Then we will get a better idea of whether members think it matters. Who knows, maybe doing these surveys could get to be a regular event, if enough members respond.
There are a lot of changes that need to be made with our Tribal governance, and this is one of them. One step at a time...
Chris
Post a Comment