BY MIKE CETERA
Stephanie Kifowit correctly points out in a story last week that she wouldn't be an alderman without the benefit of a primary.
Kifowit finished second in a three-way primary in 2002. During that same primary, former Aurora Alderman Kenneth Hinterlong bested current 5th Ward Alderman John "Whitey" Peters by 49 votes. Peters went on to win in the general election. But he, too, would be out of a job if it weren't for Aurora's primary system.
Interesting trivia, but so what?
Candidates should be interested in saving taxpayers money and ensuring a fair process, not in simply saving themselves.
We should ask, how do voters benefit from a local primary? Since these races are non-partisan, municipal primaries aren't political party nominations, like the presidential race.
Does a primary give voters more time to get to know candidates? Probably, but they could simply start campaigning earlier under a different system.
It seems to me that a primary system -- particularly in a race for mayor -- favors the candidate with the deepest pockets, someone who can spend enough to get through the primary and then spend more to win in the general election. Eliminating the primary may work to level the playing field, if only even a little bit.
It is true, however, that under a system without a primary, a candidate could win election without winning a majority of the votes. I'm not sure the lack of a mandate from the voters is enough to justify the cost, no matter if it's $10 or $100,000.
Given the fact that only 20,000 or so vote in the Mayors election you can hardly say that you have a mandate even if one was to receive 51% of the vote. The voters are smart enough to make the right chose in one election. After the Denny Hastert mess I think the taxpayers are tired of it all. I know that I am.
Give me the money that it would cost to hold a primary and I'll fix a few more streets in my ward.
The money savings is an interesting argument. In order for their to be a real savings you would need to ensure that there was not a 5 way race for Alderman at Large (not sure if that is up this time). Also if any aldermanic race had 5 you would still have some costs (because you would still have to staff up the commission on election night, not as much perhaps but you still would).
Assuming there are going to 4 or less (don't forget we had 5 last time) it does change the election dynamic a bit.
Also do we want a mayor who got 35% or 40% of the vote?
Since I am assuming you can search your archives for free. When Stover and Pierce and the other candidate faced off in the 'primary' round, did Stover or Pierce get the majority of the vote and if so what were the percentages.
If I recall correctly, Pierce decided not to run in the 'final' so Stover was the winner, but I forgot who got the most votes.
Thanks
OneMan
Stover: 5,811
Pierce: 5,113
Ron Harris: 607
Ed Beale: 157
Thanks.
I knew that no one got 50% + 1 in the first round but I forgot if it was Stover or Pierce who got the most.
One man brings up an intresting fact. What if there is a 5 way race for Alderman at large and not Mayor (there are three people now). Do they only run a primary for the at-large people? Or do they do a primary for all considering they have to staff the whole city anyway.
Anyone know the answers?