Let me not burry the lede, I am unequivocally in favor of moving the Coral Gables elections to November. In fact, I am sure that if this issue could be resolved by principled debate alone, most within our community would need but mere seconds to conclude that 68% voter turnout is better than 21% and that $100,000 saved is better than $100,000 spent. November defeats April. Q.E.D. ‘Twas ever thus. See you next time.
But a purely principled debate might as well be a white peacock, or an election that Melissa Castro voted in, or any other extremely rare phenomenon. No, what we have here is a political contest, plain and simple, and the only thing that distinguishes this contest from the usual fare is the thick and shiny veneer of principled debate that has been slapped upon it. This is not a case of to develop or not develop, dear citizen, this one is about ELECTION INTEGRITY!
Actually, it is about political control of the city. This contest has nothing to do with election integrity unless, like the pro-April side of the issue, you beat and torture the meaning of that increasingly loaded phrase into something that resembles “our elections might not produce our preferred outcomes” or “dumb and icky people will be able to vote in our elections.” And, yes, to be fair, both sides are pursuing pragmatic ends. I am not so naive as to think that the forces fighting for November are doing so because they stumbled upon Jean-Jacques Rousseau and awakened their inner democratic maximalists.
But while either side can resort to whataboutism, only one finds its political interest at odds with democratic principles. Only one claims to represent a silent majority of residents while fighting tooth and nail to ensure the actual majority of residents remain silent. Only one is frightened of the prospect of a municipal election that is too large to be dominated by a single group of activists. And although I am not one to shoot a duck for quacking, or a politician for politicking, blatantly defiling first principles for mere political survival is a bridge too far for me, and it has brought me to the point where I would be willing to challenge a sitting commissioner in order to ensure it does not happen again.
We can put a pin in that for the moment, though. If litigating this issue is going to require engaging with pretense no matter what, if we are being forced to pretend that this is not about cold electoral control but about lofty and ephemeral concerns such as the integrity and sanctity and purity of our elections, then so be it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
The best case for April
One nice thing about litigating this debate is that one side’s argument is incredibly straightforward. November elections will produce voter turnout north of 20,000 and will save the city $100,000 per election. But if that is too simple a sketch for you, I recommend Lago’s August 29th op-ed piece in the Miami Herald for a much more thoughtful analysis.
The argument for April, however, is a bit trickier. It has to be, because it somehow has to find a way to convince you that less democracy is actually a good thing. The same people who are always droning on about listening to the residents have to prove that hearing from 15,000 more of those residents would be a bad thing. They need you to not think very hard about any of this. And in case you think I’m being glib, allow me to steel man what I think are April’s strongest arguments—the four pillars of the position—and then give them a little poke:
April elections serve as a firewall between local and national politics. By being off-cycle, Gables elections remain “purely Coral Gables.” Moving the elections to November and thus syncing them with the national cycle will allow partisanship to encroach upon the process. Local issues will become less cogent as they become entangled with national ones.
This is entirely a priori speculation. It fails to identify the mechanism by which national partisan politics contaminates the civic well. It conveniently ignores the thousands of cities that hold November elections without encountering this problem.
November elections will feature high-octane national issues that overshadow our own. Local questions will be pushed several pages down a long ballot.
We have data on under votes, and while there is a drop off from the top of the ballot, we can still expect, at the very least, double the number of votes vis-à-vis the most successful April election.
The massive increase in voter turnout during November elections will largely depend on low-information voters, many of whom will do little more than eeny-meeny-miny-mo their down-ballot votes. The dynamic that a relatively low-key and niche April election practically guarantees is one of a highly engaged electorate casting well-informed votes. There is a reason we don’t let children vote. Isn’t there something to be said for quality of quantity?
This is the argument I encounter most often. And, to be honest, it mildly appeals to my inner elitist. I, for one, chafe at the fact that my vote carries the same weight as that of someone who can’t identify Canada on a map. But we don’t get to slice and dice fundamental rights, and if you think about it long enough you will realize that if you embrace the idea of selecting for voter quality you also have to embrace some kind of arbitrary limiting principle. If we are going to run with the idea of deterring uninformed voters, we need to define what an uninformed voter is, and then we need figure out how far we should really go to deter them. Maybe we should subject voters to a civics test. But then who writes that test? What are the questions? It simply doesn’t work.
Also, not all uninformed voters are bad voters. Often times, they are young voters who have yet to realize there is a world beyond national politics. Placing local questions on the same ballot as flashy national races is an easy way to increase civic engagement and reach young voters when they are most politically receptive. I, for one, can tell you that my first exposure to local politics was on a November ballot.
Finally, the vast majority of the residents who embrace this argument just so happen to be Ariel and Castro voters. We all know it and we all know why. I mention this because I find it incredibly amusing that many of those raising the ghastly specter of the low-information voter are also responsible for electing the absolute lowest of low-information voters to the city commission. These are the same residents who conferred actual legislative power upon a woman who can honestly say that her last outing as a voter was also her first one. How about that for irony?
Money and special interest will come to dominate local politics as candidates will need to raise more money in order to remain competitive. True grassroots candidates will suffer. Moreover, developers are by far the largest donor class in municipal elections, so moving elections to November will give developers a greater ability to “buy” candidates and influence elected officials.
At first glance, this is the most convincing argument. It makes superficial sense—reaching over 20,000 voters sounds expensive. However, there are several problems with this argument. First, this is the 21st century and there are myriad ways to organically reach large audiences. Gables Insider claims to reach 30,000 residents. That’s more than the number of registered voters in the city.
Second, several high quality studies have shown that off-cycle elections are less responsive to the majority’s preferences and more responsive to organized interest groups. Go figure.
Third, limits on campaign contributions will remain unchanged. If a candidate wants to raise more money for a November election, he will probably have to expand his pool of donors. Expanding the pool of donors dilutes the relative value of each donor’s contribution. A $1,000 contribution is theoretically more obligating to a candidate who raises $10,000 than it is to a candidate who raises $100,000.
Finally, this idea that each dollar contributed equals a certain unit of influence over a candidate is naive. Lago is probably the best fundraiser the Gables has ever seen. He also has voted against more development projects than anyone on the dais. Also, it would behoove a great many to consider the possibility that when a developer throws money into a race, it is not to “buy” one candidate but to block another, e.g. the candidate vowing to put a moratorium on all construction projects.
The bottom line
The four arguments above are undoubtedly the heart and soul of the pro-April position. There are lesser arguments that revolve around tradition (it’s an election, not Thanksgiving), facile logistical concerns, and the notion that the 2015 charter review committee recommended against moving elections to November (at least two prominent former members of the committee have recently spoken in support of November). I do not find any of them even remotely persuasive, much less compelling.
There is also the so-called August option, which is Ariel’s stated preference. I have chosen to ignore this option both because it is stupid and because only a small handful of people seem to be taking it seriously—but mostly because it is stupid.
But even if you find any of these arguments convincing, even if you think their refutations to be completely bunk, it could not possibly matter less. There are at least a half dozen cogitable arguments one can cook up for why online speech should be censored, or why cold-blooded murderers should be summarily executed upon arrest. But no reasonable American needs to hear them to know that they are nonstarters, because they understand that free speech and due process are fundamental rights. They know, even if only intuitively, what a categorical imperative is.
At best, what the pro-April position ultimately boils down to is a set of practical objections to a first-principles proposition, a futile effort that is not only tantamount to pushing against a mountain, but against an entire arc of American history that has bent toward the promise of a more complete democracy.
A Letter to the Comission
It appears that there is a disconnect within our City Beautiful. Due to the consistently low voter turnout, our April elections have become isolated, with the same uninspiring group of voters repeatedly showing up to cast their ballots. During the month of April, most of my friends are usually out of town, and even those who are in town often have no idea who our commissioners are. Many of my friends are content with life in Coral Gables, believing that as long as Mayor Vince Lago remains in charge with Vice Mayor Anderson by his side, everything will continue to run smoothly. However, this assumption may not hold true. It is my opinion if more residents had been actively engaged in the April elections, we might have witnessed a significantly different outcome.
I believe that the Gables Insider bears a significant responsibility for dividing our City with its aggressive and unsettling comments, often made under pseudonyms like "Do Or Die," who claimed that "If Ariel is not voted in as Commissioner, this City will Die." Other comments like "It's time to clean house," "Lago is going down," and "Time to take back our City" have only added to the division. Frankly, I'm not sure which City these individuals are referring to because in MY City, the place I've called home for 57 years, we have one of the most competent Mayors that Coral Gables has seen in a long time. It seems to me that Commissioner Fernandez allowed this rhetoric and sensationalism to thrive in his Gables Insider, knowing quite simply that angry people vote. If you recall, Ivette Arango was initially in the lead, but not by a significant margin, and unfortunately, we ended up with a runoff election. Once again, the same group of voters mobilized and secured a commission seat for Ms. Castro. With all due respect to Ms. Castro, I am still unsure about her contributions, as I have yet to see any significant legislation from either her or Commissioner Fernandez after 100 days in office.
Commissioner Fernandez, I used to hold you in high regard, but I chose not to vote for you because I did not want to be associated with a group of individuals whose agenda seemed to include intimidation and misinformation. I believe, Commissioner Fernandez will always be remembered as the Commissioner who, on his very first day, attempted to have our City Manager expelled. A City Manager who is highly respected among his peers and shoulders more responsibilities as a PE than anyone else on the commission. Mr. Iglesias's job is a 24/7 commitment. That one may not like him personally because he’s not taking selfies at every job site he oversees, is a matter of personal preference.
But I digress. Maintaining local elections in April makes absolutely no sense. Our current voter turnout is abysmal. Our true Gables residents are intelligent and discerning. Wouldn't we prefer constituents like these - individuals who can see through the smoke and mirrors and don't subscribe to the idea that the City will crumble if a particular candidate is not elected? Holding elections in April is a disservice to our City and its residents, and your reluctance to make this change could be perceived as an act of voter suppression. How un-American is that? We live in a democracy, and having elections in November will ensure that every voice is heard.
Just recently turned on to the existence of this completely delightful rhetorical nook. A pleasure to read in every regard. Thank you for taking the time.