by Dick Miller
WE.CONNECT.DOTS: This Tuesday Pennsylvania will participate in a futile exercise in Democracy replicated in some other states but certainly nothing like what passes for local government in any other civilized nation.
A couple million of us (at the most) will trek to the polls and vote for one or more choices for more than 15,000 local political offices. For the most part, we will not have a clue as to the significance of our vote. This is not surprising because most people running for these offices do not have a clue what they will do if they win.
Worse yet, the majority of the candidates on the primary ballot do not have an opponent spring or fall.
Cluelessness continues for those who win in November, as they become “bobble heads” for municipal managers and school superintendents who always have an agenda versus the elected officials who quickly forget theirs.
Generally speaking, the reasons why these clueless people run for local government positions – most of which pay little or nothing – fall into the following categories.
“My daughter got passed over for cheerleader.”
“Our son got lousy grades from certain teachers.”
“The school bus doesn’t come near our house.”
“My street needs paved.”
“I am retired now and have nothing else to do.”
“I don’t like the people who are in there now.”
“My taxes are too high.”
“I can help a relative or friend get a job.”
The system that once helped identify which candidates could walk and chew gum is broken. Local newspapers no longer cover local campaigns. Editors say there is minimal interest and they no longer have the staff. Political parties hardly have a pulse at the local level.
The press generally covers local forums sponsored by Chambers and League of Women Voters chapters. Candidates are required to answer “softball” questions such as “what will be your top priority if you are elected?” Most reply “economic development” and promise ask around for ideas on how to create jobs. Rarely you might get “world peace,” which has about the same relevance.
Editors and reporters focus on fair and balanced stories with equal quotes from the candidates. These reports are not designed to identify good candidates or those idiots who do not deserve a vote. Press fear called “biased” exceeds their responsibility to tell us about these candidates.
Candidates retaliate by refusing to buy advertising in local papers. Options such as social media and direct mail have proven more effective. Yard signs litter but they are cheaper.
League of Women Voters used to bring in moderators (mostly editors or reporters) who were self-invigorated by the number of tough questions they could lob. As it is, these candidate forums draw zero interest. Often candidates and their friends comprise the audience.
Even the campaigns for judges (jobs that pay $180k per year) are designed to not be informative to the voters. Judges are not supposed to render opinions on incendiary issues such as abortion or death penalty. Some may try to get their opinions across in a less direct manner. An example is when they include their membership in “Right-to-Life” in their bibliography.
Putting bad people in jail is an issue that does get exploited. “I am a former prosecutor and, as judge, will be able to put even more scoundrels in the slammer.”
Pay attention when you meet a lawyer on the campaign trail for judge. Chances are if he/she is victorious, that’s the last time you will get close enough to touch him/her. Many judges believe that mingling with the multitude deters delivering their version of fair and impartial verdicts. Next time you see these people is when they are back on some judicial ballot.
Dullness in judicial campaigns is not the fault of the candidates. Most are seasoned litigators and love to engage in debates. The Code of Conduct for Judicial Candidates does not permit such an exchange and the public – with the exception of some right wingnuts –doesn’t seem to care.
Bottom Line: Be sure to vote this Tuesday. It may count for something.
