Elections 2011

Today is Election Day. Most areas of Michigan will have votes on this or that, from school boards to charter revisions. This is considered an off year election; there are areas which will have no voting at all. It is off year because there are no presidential or legislative races. In short, it's kind of the dull part of the cycle.

Many teachers in Michigan get the day off. That may be the biggest joke job perk in the world. It's done in order to help them vote and help others get elected. What that translates into is that it is assumed the teachers will work for the Democrats and liberal causes on the presumption that's where their passion lies. Quite frankly, they shouldn't get the day off without burning a personal or sick day. No one else does; there's no reason educators should get a free pass simply because of an election.

Let's be honest: no one's single vote really means that much. Few elections of any consequence are decided by such unimaginably slim margins, and those that are are probably so local as to be relatively meaningless. But vote anyway. The system won't work if you don't, and it goes without saying that there are worse systems which may creep in and take over if we don't use the ballot box for what we believe important. The slippery slope goes often unnoticed; treat your vote as though it means the entire election.

So speaking of elections, there are too many to comment on. We'll trust your judgment on your own local races. But in Detroit, we've decided to recommend a vote against the proposed Charter revisions, simply because they encourage city wide recycling. Yes, we mean that. Recycling is seriously overrated, and simply isn't worth the effort. It's feel good pulp which allows conservatives and liberals to appear to agree on something, yet it has no honest practical value. Vote against the Charter revisions on that issue alone.

Revising the Detroit Charter

Detroit Common Council President Charles Pugh is against the proposed revision of the Detroit City Charter. He feels it doesn't give the Common Council enough confirmation power over mayoral appointees. The Charter Revision also calls for an elected police commission, at large voting for two council members with the other 7 elected from districts, a standard of ethical conduct clause, and yadda yadda yadda.

We have intended to write about the revisions for week, but the fact is we simply get excited over them. We cannot shake the feeling that, in the end, it's much ado about nothing. Not only is the process dull and boring except, perhaps, for constitutional law geeks, but given the type of leadership Detroit has suffered for years now we do not see where the changes will help.

Yes, yes, districts for council members and elected police boards are all well and good. They call for better accountability among elected office holders and keep the police in check. In the abstract, all that works. But if all that's going to happen is that the same kind of wrangling will go on between council and mayor as has been our fate for years now, how will altering the Charter replace that?

We recommend voting for it just the same, if for no other reason than that stirring the pot maybe, hopefully, will leave a better stew. But our skepticism will remain until and if Detroit can find itself better people at the helm. Unless that happens, all the revisions in the world will not make Detroit a better place.

Detroit Charter Review

The Common Council of the City of Detroit, in accordance with a recent decision by the Detroit Charter Revision Commission proposal approved Saturday, is suggesting that the number of Council members be reduced from nine to seven. Five would be elected from districts, while two would be elected at large. Currently all nine seats are selected at large.

The arguments for and against the change are really rather simple. The basic one in support of the change is that it will ease the cost of governing. The lead idea against the new proposal is that it will of course lessen representation; fewer people will speak for larger populations.

Each idea can be hemmed and hawed over, well, indefinitely. Any time we have the opportunity to lessen government spending ought should be at least looked over and studied. Yet less effective representation, consolidating power into fewer hands, must be seen as a possible deterrent to better government as well. The trouble is that both feelings are rather easily countered, too. Less government spending, if it leads to less overall efficient government, isn't necessarily all that good. But more representation, if all it is is more of the same old, same old, means little.

Which leads to the crux of the issue: it doesn't matter what exact shape the Detroit city government takes if the folks involved aren't good governors. All the hand wrangling which surely will be done in the coming weeks over what precise form the Council should take will mean nothing if there aren't good people filling the spots. Given Detroit's record of selecting her leadership, and it doesn't seem likely that the numbers will matter.

You can change the form of something all you want. If the function doesn't improve, then the process is simply all for naught.