Steve suggests that higher black voter turnout would “change the dynamic” in local politics and government. But the fact is that — in fact, BECAUSE of the single-member district Steve pointed to — representation from black and white neighborhoods is pretty much locked in. Jerome Rice, for example, ran unopposed in a majority-black, single-member district; higher turnout wouldn’t have made a difference. There were two African-American District 7 school board members up for re-election….they, too, ran unopposed in majority-black districts.

In majority-white districts, meanwhile, the issue of black voter turnout matters very little. Would Thomas Belenchia have defeated Cate Ryba if more African-Americans voted? I very seriously doubt it. (And regarding “political dynamics,” In fact, Belenchia positioned himself as the more “conservative” candidate — and still lost.)

Where race might really matter would be if there were NOT single-member districts and the vote was still at-large. Higher black turnout could make a difference in a City-wide election (which raises the obvious question: if African-Americans are in the majority in the City, would they have been better off — by 2009, anyway — if the NAACP had not pushed for single-member districts?). Of course, in the Mayor’s race this year, the notion has been presented that the black community rallied around Junie White and begged him to run. Not sure if that’s totally correct, though several black leaders clearly did ask him to run…..but the point is that the will of the black community was, according to popular perception, served in that City-wide race.

Anyway, it may be that pushing municipal elections to regular election cycles makes sense. And it also may be that such a move would lead to larger voter turnout on the part of African-Americans. But I don’t think it would change the political dynamic much at all, since single-member districts have things pretty well locked in as it is (for better or worse). So I don’t find fault in this regard with Spencer’s article.

From my limited perspective the only news outlet that was really giving the election any coverage was the Spark and we have Steve and Chris to thank for that. I saw more about all the candidates for all positions here then anywhere else. It was true last year as I used the data Steve had so thoughtfully dug up for me to decide on state positions. I was really having a hard time finding a good source to do comparisons elsewhere, plus information about any local or state referendums of which there was one.

Personally I would prefer voting for more then one thing on election day. If done right, people can get all they need on local issues as well as state and national. I thing The Spark did an excellent job this year.

I am not quite sure how staffing and rental issues are paid for holding actual elections and who’s budget they come out of, but it sure seems a waste to hold elections so people can maybe vote for one small thing and the turn out be so lousy cause no one really new any info. Way to make good use of one’s budgeted tax dollars.

It’s hard to get motivated to vote when your vote itself appears to mean nothing because there’s only one person on the ballot. That’s another argument for changing the local election years, as there will be hotly contested state and national elections, even if the local ones are non-contests that year.

The other factor is making the public aware of just what’s at stake in these local elections, and that their voices really do matter. That’s a large part of what we’re trying to do here on the Spark, and it’s obviously something that’s on Jason Spencer’s radar. There’s been an encouraging trend of local political discussion happening — the local Drinking Liberally chapter comes to mind as one grassroots effort — but there’s clearly a lot of work to be done.

I absolutely agree with you that local elections need to get out of the shadow of national party politics. The local level is the only place where a handful of citizens without significant financial support can make real change in their communities. It’s more important in many ways than anything at the national level.

I’m just not sure that off-year elections are the best way — or even a very good way — of bringing people into that process.