To Be, Or Not To Be.... Endorsed?

As a sitting member of Lansdale Borough Council who just went through the process of getting elected in 2011, and with the next slate of Primary elections creeping up quickly, I thought it might be interesting to give folks an overview of how things work and offer my perspective on how both candidates and voters may (or may not) benefit from the process. 

The first hurdle for any candidate affiliated with a Political Party who wishes to run is to circulate nominating petitions and file them. To be complete, these require candidates to obtain 10 (ten) signatures from registered voters of their Party in their Ward. That's right, just 10. In Ward 3, which I represent, that's roughly one half of 1% of the eligible electorate. Needless to say, the bar is not very high, so it's very easy for anyone to end up on the Primary ballot as a Republican or Democrat. Independents follow a different process and do not take part in the Primary. More on that later. 

From this point, each local Party Committee, both Democrat and Republican, will tend to "endorse" candidates. This endorsement is in no way required, and does not change the names on the ballot box in any way. This endorsement is essentially a "show of support" from each local Party's committee that certain candidates are supposedly aligned most properly to the ideals of the Party they represent. For me, this process seems to make the most sense at the State and National levels, where "Democratic" or "Republican" ideals are easily communicated and translated into policy. Locally this really has no bearing on the day-to-day issues we face on Borough Council, and so to me, an endorsement at this level often becomes instead a popularity contest where the endorsed candidates are "in tight" with the committee. So the endorsement may have no bearing on that candidate's qualifications, platform, or real ability to win an election. Instead it tends to be based on whether they've shown themselves to be a "good" Republican or Democrat at the local level. Again, whatever that means at the local level? 

As a Democrat, I was able to attend the recent endorsement meeting for the Lansdale Democratic Committee on April 1. In defining the endorsement, the local committee people made a couple of key points: 

1. The endorsement is not for the purpose of identifying who might be best to serve on Council, but instead to identify (as I mentioned above) who best represents the “Democratic Party”. When I pointed out the fact that this doesn't necessarily lead to the best Council candidates being endorsed, there was no argument of this fact. 
2. Another point made in support of endorsement was that local Democrats might be looking for “guidance” on who to support when there are several people to choose from. This statement was made as the committee considered whether to leave the primary “open”, and let the voters decide who to move forward to the general election. 

It should be obvious to everyone that there's a major disconnect between #1 and #2!   The endorsement is not expressly for the purpose of helping people understand who might be best suited for Council, and yet is meant to give people “guidance”.   Buyer beware!! 

As a practical example, let's consider the case of the Ward 1 endorsements that were made. In Ward 1, there are 3 candidates vying for 2 seats. The candidates are: Mary Fuller, the highly dedicated incumbent Council Vice-President and Lansdale Democratic Committeeperson who chairs Parks and Rec (among other committees) and has brought us Founders Day and Fireworks for two years; Jeff Howard, a local resident and landlord; and Joe Wolf, a local Democrat. Through questioning, I was able to learn that Jeff had attended exactly one Democratic Committee meeting, and Joe was attending his first. Jeff was not present to speak to his candidacy at the endorsement and did not send any note or proxy, and Joe stated that he was admittedly new to politics, just learning, and didn't have anything specific he was looking to accomplish. 

How did the voting go? In the first round, Jeff won clearly. That's right – the gentleman who had attended exactly one LDC meeting and wasn't present to explain why he was running. This is the person who “best represents the ideals of the Democratic Party.” Beyond that, there was a tiebetween Mary and Joe in the first ballot. In the second ballot, Mary eeked out a 1-vote victory. So, a dedicated, life-long Democrat, Committeeperson, highly committed to our town, with an actual track record of delivery, barely managed to get the endorsement, behind a gentleman who wasn't there, and over a gentleman who was admittedly new to the whole thing!

As a Democratic voter, what should you take away from this?  Exactly nothing, except that there was clearly some other agenda at work, and certainly NOT what's best for Lansdale. 

Isn't this precisely what's wrong in American politics today? I suspect that people want something more, particularly nowadays. I think they want to hear equally from all the candidates on the issues. Full disclosure:  as someone who won despite not having the endorsement of their Party, I believe strongly that this is true -- that my constituents want to make that choice for themselves – and not be influenced by the nuances of local party politics. 

I applaud LDC committeemen Robert Willi (also running in Ward 3) and Bill Henning for advancing the idea of an open primary in contested races. Unfortunately their voices were drowned out by a majority who apparently continue to feel that presenting real qualifications for office are less relevant than whether you wave the Democratic Flag. And frankly, based on the majority of endorsement outcomes on April 1, I don't even think the LDC is focused on that goal either. Sadly, they appear to have some other agenda in mind.

And so we arrive at Primary Election Day, which is May 21st this year. In Ward 3, there are 2 seats up for election to Borough Council. What this means is that the top two vote-getters from each Party will be automatically "moved forward" to the General Election ballot. Assuming there are at least 2 candidates who filed from each Party, this means there will be at least 4 candidates to choose from for two spots in November. I say at least, because this does not account for potential Independents. 

Independents are able to start circulating nomination papers the day after the deadline for filing Party-affiliated nominating petitions -- in this case March 13. The number of signatures an Independent candidate should obtain is computed by taking 2% of the voter turnout from the previous election where someone would have been elected -- in this case the 2011 election. In Ward 3, voter turnout in November 2011 for my seat was 1,019 votes. This would mean an Independent candidate in Ward 3 would need roughly 21 signatures (from any registered voter in the Ward) to get on the General Election ballot. So double what was required for the Primary, but still very doable, considering that there is no restriction on Party. Independents have until August 1st to circulate and file these nomination papers. Assuming they obtain the requisite number of signatures, they are added to the November General Election ballot. 

Almost makes one wonder why anyone would go through the primary nomination process, right?? 

Except, the truth is, the system, as it is today, still favors the Party candidates in the General Election. That Independent candidate has no organized structure (the Party committee) to help him/her disseminate information and get the word out. He/she must recruit and organize his/her own poll workers which are critical on election day. He/she must do all his/her own fundraising. And when it comes time to vote, he/she must educate voters not to simply push the "D" or "R" columns in the ballot box, but to look at the Independent column and push the correct button. Unfortunately for the Independent, the statistics indicate that most people still just push the big button at the top. 

I'd offer that this is an unfortunate reality in our political system, at least insofar as it influences local elections. Local officials such as myself are generally part-time politicians, with day jobs and families to support. We do this job because we see a need in our town and we want to make a difference. And we need all the help we can get. Frankly speaking, anything that disadvantages a local candidate because of his/her national political views is a bad thing in my book. 

So, as we enter the voting booth this year to select our local candidates, I'd hope that each of us would each reflect on ALL of our candidate choices and their platforms, and whether those things make sense for us and Lansdale, regardless of what column they happen to be in on the ballot, or whether the local Party "endorsed" them.