I read a most interesting article in the News Herald today.

Wyandotte will soon be asking their voters on whether or not to eliminate the local Primary election.

I got to thinking about Lincoln Park. We no longer have a large amount of candidates seeking elected office. Most of the time if there is need for a Primary, it is because we have one candidate over the offical cut off.

This year we taxpayers had to pay for a Primary because there were three people running for Treasurer. In 2003, the taxpayer paid for a Primary because there was 13 people running for council (one candidate over the cut off of 12 candidates). In 2001, I believe there were 14 candidate for council which required a Primary to eliminate the two extra candidates.

I am all for citizens running for office. I wish we had more candidate to choose from. But facts are facts, we no longer have a large amount of candidates seeking elected office.

When is the last time the City Clerk of Lincoln Park ran unopposed?

How often is there three candidates for Mayor?

I remember a time when there were over 20 candidates running for council. We had to have a Primary. In the last 20 years I doubt there has been more than 15 candidates for council.

The Lincoln Park School Board does not use a Primary. In theory, they could have 50 people running for School Board President and they would only use the General Election to deteremine the winner.

So has the time come to eliminate the Primary for our local government offices?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Congratulations Councilman Mario DiSanto. The Dean of the LP Council

  Submit to Quotes         

TheGirlNextDoor (09-25-05)

Of course I would support this!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Submit to Quotes         

I would also support this idea. Magoo is right. The City of Allen Park paid big bucks for a primary just because we had three candidates for City Clerk.

In these tough financial times, we must look for ways to trim expenses. Maybe they could change it to at least four or five candidates before needing a primary.

It's very expensive to run a primary. Good job, Magoo. Excellent new post!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IMHO

  Submit to Quotes         

I think the real problem is lack of candidates. I wish there was something that could be done to encourage fresh qualified candidates to run for office.

Many who do run for the first time are so turned off at the nastinest they face during the election, that they decide never to run again.

If you decide to run for council, you can rest assure of getting some crap from some of the incumbents. And I am not talking about anyone in particular. Remember, people who run for office have a lot of ego. Take a good look at our 7 sitting there every Monday. No matter who you like or dislike, you have to admit that none of them suffer from a lack of self-esteem.

At one time it took an election or two to win a seat. Nowadays, if a candidate did not win the first time out, they most likely will not run a second time.

If there was a resolution to eliminate the Primary election, I would have to give it some thought. I would like to hear from people with strong opinions from both sides before I would decide. Right now it would almost be a flip of the coin.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
recordar la yocorazon

  Submit to Quotes         

The same voters who narrow the field in a primary are the ones who elect people in the general election. I say get rid of the primary and let voters decide one time who they want. That would give everyone a chance as well as save the city about $16,000 it costs to run a primary.

  Submit to Quotes         

Mr. Maggo, I agree with you, 100%

  Submit to Quotes         

i dont know if that is a good idea for anyone running for office with the primary that get to see how much work they have to do before the reg. election but i on the other hand think it would be good to save the $18,000 or so that it cost to have the primary.

  Submit to Quotes         

So do I understand Southside believes the Taxpayers should shell out tax money in order for political candidates to set their campaign strategy?

This is why politicians feel free to spend taxpayer dollars so unwisely. Taxpayers like Southside could care less how the dollars are spent.

  Submit to Quotes         

The past few elections I don't feel a primary is warranted. There is enough room on the general election ballet for everyone who pulls a petition. JMHO

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Arctic Cat Thundercat Test Pilot

  Submit to Quotes         

Perhaps they should up the number of candidates required to hold a primary.

  Submit to Quotes         

That would be a better idea Don, good one. There's always room on the ballets.

  Submit to Quotes         

Anyone know the breakdown of the cost of a primary? The volunteers aren't paid, so where is the expense?

  Submit to Quotes         

The election workers are paid and they work something like 12 hours. Each precinct has at least five workers. They are not full time workers and only work on election day.

  Submit to Quotes         

DPS employees also are paid overtime to run from precinct to precinct with problems, as well as setting up and tearing down all of the election equipment. The clerk's staff also is paid overtime for their working all day and throughout the night. It also costs money to print the ballots and to advertise the election in the news-herald.

  Submit to Quotes         

jujitsu50 (09-26-05)