Opening tip: "Do all City Council races need a Third Party Candidate?"

Former 3rd district councilman Maury Goldberg, who was narrowly defeated by the incumbent (and fellow Democrat) Steve Price in the recent primary election (another Democratic candidate, Charlie Harshfield, was close behind in third place), ruminated on a hot topic last Friday at his New Albany Today blog.

Maury's original posting follows. After it are my comments, Maury's responses and a parting thought by Bluegill, my colleague here at NA Confidential.

Readers, what's your take?

---

Friday, May 18, 2007: Third Party Candidate(s)? Updated, posted by Maury K. Goldberg at 5/18/2007 10:44:00 PM.

Let’s talk about the Third District City Council race to illustrate a point I want to make. The Democrat Party's nominee for the Third District City Council District is Mr. Steve Price. As of this date of May 18, 2007, the Floyd County Republican Party has not chosen a candidate, but will do so at a later date. An Independent Party Candidate files for the Third District City Council seat. On November 6, 2007, the Third District voters have 3 candidates to vote for.

When one looks at the Third District Democrat Primary in 2003 Mr. Price won his race in a three man field as he did in 2007. The General Election was a Democrat sweep plus Mr. Price was a political unknown at the time does not factor in to the political equation. Of the 3 election contest with Mr. Price, two have been with two opponents and one with one opponent. Mr. Price has been able to hold his own.

Enter a Third Party Candidate and Mr. Price faces the same challenges he has encountered in 2003 and 2007 Primary Election contests. Names I have heard for such a candidacy are too litigious. Further, why would the Republican Party choose a Democrat or anyone not affiliated with the Republican Party? Local political history has shown the Republican office holders are more cohesive in supporting Republican Mayor's than the Democrats towards their own Mayor's.

Mr. Price would hope for a Third Party candidate, which helps him with the job of retaining the Third District City Council seat for the Democrats. This bring up the question of what is the goal of a Third Party candidate? To defeat a political party nominee? Is it a personal hatred for a political party's candidate? To further your own political agenda? Such questions have to be confronted in laying the basis for such a candidacy. The point being made is "Do all City Council races need a Third Party Candidate."

Let ask the question about the possibility of one or several Independent Candidates could win. The voters could be confronted with the possibility of a 4-4 split City Council with a Independent party candidate holding the balance of power. What about possibility of a majority of Independents on the City Council? How would such a majority of Independents work with whoever is elected Mayor this coming November, 2007? How would policy be decided? Will we have political grid lock as we have now?

One has a right to run and offer themselves as a Third Party candidate. The aforementioned list question need to be answered before the voting public is to vote for you. So if a Third Party candidate runs in the Third City Council District or any other City Council District or as an At large City Council Candidate one has to explain their candidacy. For hatred of a Political Party's nominee is not justification for running.

---


On 5/19/2007 at 9:07 AM, The New Albanian said...

When there's time, I'll be elevating this discussion to the marquee at NA Confidential so that a broader audience can participate. Until then …

Names I have heard for such a candidacy are too litigious.

Really? I'm aware of one lawsuit pending, but it isn't clear how this applies to independent candidates in the 3rd district -- unless, of course, you refer to the aspect of the word that implies “argumentative." Which do you mean to be used in this case?

Further, why would the Republican Party choose a Democrat or anyone not affiliated with the Republican Party?

Indeed, but I wasn't aware that the GOP was considering such a strategy. Do you know somthing the rest of us don't?

Mr. Price would hope for a Third Party candidate, which helps him with the job of retaining the Third District City Council seat for the Democrats.

Just like he hoped for two Democrats to run against him in May. That one turned out nicely, didn't it?

This bring up the question of what is the goal of a Third Party candidate?

Many possible answers to this one, but the most obvious would be in a situation where, as is so often the case, both major parties in the American duopoly fail to offer viable policy alternatives. Are you suggesting that with 63% of the 3rd's voters choosing one of two progressive platforms in the primary, that these voters are undeserving of the chance to advance the platform again?

How would such a majority of Independents work with whoever is elected Mayor this coming November, 2007? How would policy be decided? Will we have political grid lock as we have now?

Your point here is growing ever more elusive. My counter: Can a council that includes independents be any more gridlocked than the present one with eight Democrats (come of them profoundly non-Democratic?)

And, given the non-Democratic voting patterns therein and the failure of the local party structure to enforce discipline or even to advocate a coherent platform, are you suggesting that independent voices would be more untrustworthy when it comes to voters of a progressive mindset?

So if a Third Party candidate runs in the Third City Council District or any other City Council District or as an At large City Council Candidate one has to explain their candidacy.

Precisely, and in the same manner as major party council candidates ... and surely if certain of them had been more forthcoming last winter when the time was opportune and stepped forward to discuss platforms and ideas when we were fairly begging for such a public exchange to occur, we might not have labored through the politics-as-usual split that resulted in Steve Price being re-nominated in May.

For hatred of a Political Party's nominee is not justification for running.

That's a faulty conclusion, and one based on a handful of faulty premises.

It needn't be hatred of a nominee, and so far as I can tell, it isn't. I've not heard the "h" word used until now. Rather, it is disgruntlement with the nominee's platform planks and ideas, and a desire to offer an alternative. Specifically, in the context of the 3rd district, this notion of offering alternatives is better pursued in a unified fashion than fragmented.

In fact, I'm entirely unaware of any better rationale for an independent candidate than offering powerful ideas, educating people about them, and doing so in a manner designed to achieve unity rather than guarantee fragmentation.

I concede that nesting comfortably in the bosom of the two-party system is a veritable New Albany birthright, but if we are to speak of "local political history," then we must be willing to speak truthfully as to the rate of success of such a strategy.

Which is my question to you: Are any of the points you've raised here really persuasive when it comes to the argument against an independent candidate in the 3rd?

---


On 5/19/2007 at 4:32 PM), maury k goldberg said...

Dear Roger,

I will answer your questions.

1) Yes,I mean argumentative.
2) No, I only was mentioning what the GOP would do.
3) We learn from the past.
4) No, Whoever is the Third
5) Party Candidate has to state their platform. I cannot make an assumption that the Third Party candidate will be a "Progressive."
6) Again, until we know the "Independent Candidate(s) are, one is making an assumption such a candidate will be progressive. The questions will have to be answered once the Third Party candidate is known.
7) Roger, you do not understand the point I was making. The Third District City Council race was used to make the point "Do all City Council races need a Third Party Candidate?" I do not make any arguments against Third Party Candidate(s) nor do I assume that they will be a "progressive" in any City Council race.


---

On 5/20/2007 at 12:29 AM) bluegill said...

This argument would be much more interesting if any of the current or former candidates could explain how they came to recognize themselves as members of either side of the presiding duopoly in the absence of any substantive platforms with which to identify.

When and if the various designations begin to have meaning born of shared policy goals rather than the choosing of one electoral machine over the other, discriminating voters will have legitimate decisions to make where party affiliation is concerned.

Until then, all the candidates are ultimately running as independents.