Metro Pulse/Insights/City Council Election

Comment
on this story

by Joe Sullivan

Last week's voting dramatizes the need for a change in the way at large City Council members are elected.

In the race for At-Large Seat A, Joe Bailey received 55 percent of the votes cast. In the race for At-Large Seat C, Marilyn Roddy received 73 percent of the votes cast. Yet, absurdly enough, neither of them was elected.

With the only known exception of Bush vs. Gore, nowhere else in this country is an election held in which a candidate who receives a majority of the votes not declared the winner. But in Knoxville, Bailey and Roddy must run again on Nov. 4 against the candidates who came in a distant second in the Sept. 30 voting for their seats.

The lame explanation for this travesty is that the Sept. 30. election was just a primary, and under the city Charter the top two finishers in every City Council primary must face off again in the November general election. Under Knoxville's unique system for electing its Council members, this makes sense for the six district seats on council. For each of them, primary voting takes place solely within the district, and the top two choices of the district's voters then run citywide in the general election.

But at-large candidates, by definition, run citywide in both the primary and the general, and it makes no more sense for one of them who gets an outright majority in a non-partisan primary to have to run again than for Bill Haslam to be subjected to a November rematch with Madeline Rogero.

This flawed system is a disservice to the voters as well as the candidates. From a candidate's standpoint, running an effective citywide campaign is considerably more expensive than running in a district. Having to double up on outlays for mailings, etc., could put a candidate who gets a majority in September at a disadvantage to a candidate with deeper pockets.

Where the voters are concerned, turnout is the key. The September primary that's accompanied by a mayor's race is almost certain to produce a much larger turnout than an election for Council seats alone. Indeed, it will be surprising if the November Council elections draw more than half as many voters to the polls as the 29,000 who turned out Sept. 30. A candidate who gains a majority in an election with broad public participation is much to be preferred over a candidate who might be able to reverse the outcome when participation is much narrower.

To understand how Knoxville got stuck with this anomaly, one has to look back to the way in which at-large Council members were elected prior to a 1996 Charter amendment that imposed the present scheme. Previously, all three at-large seats were contested in conjunction. That is to say, all candidates for the three seats were pitted against each other in a single field. The top six vote getters in the primary then ran again, with the top three finishers getting elected. The Charter amendment that created three separate at-large seats afforded voters a clearer set of choices and also allowed candidates to focus their campaigns against particular opponents.

The reason for retaining provision for a run-off that can thwart the will of the majority stems from the fact that only one of Council's six district seats is contested on the same election cycle as the at-large seats. That happens to be the 5th District, and its long-time incumbent Larry Cox feared having to run in a November election in which that seat is the only one on the ballot.

There's justifiable concern that such an election might attract very little citywide attention and result in a very low voter turnout that could produce an unrepresentative outcome. Hence, rectifying the problem with the at-large election scheme is complicated by the need to avoid creating a problem for 5th District elections.

Three possible solutions occur: 1) Move 5th District elections onto the same election cycle as all other district seats that will be contested two years hence; 2) Move some other district seat onto the same cycle as the 5th District; or 3) more radically, provide for district representatives on Council to be elected by voters in their districts alone.

Knoxville's unique system for electing district representatives has both pros and cons. On the one hand, a citywide election between the top two finishers in each district primary can thwart the will of a majority of the voters in a district. On the other, it assures that district representatives have a citywide perspective, while still retaining a special accountability to voters in their district. On balance, I believe the present system has served the city well and should be retained.

Among the other choices, I believe that placing the 5th District on the same cycle as all other district seats is preferable. True, this would result in six of council's nine members being selected on one cycle and only the three at-large seats on the other. To effect the transition, it would also mean conferring either a two-year or a six-year term on the winner of this year's 5th District race. But getting all six district seats on the same cycle could help boost voter turnout that has been lamentably low.

In any event, Council should initiate a change in the city Charter to allow for majority rule in at large Council elections just as in mayoral elections. The amendment would then have to be adopted by the voters in an election where a majority already prevails.