Tearing up an Idea

There once was a third initiative proposal. We pulled the idea.

The problem addressed by the idea is real, but the solution is not a simple one. Our problem with Tucson's Mayoral election system is three-fold.

First: the Mayor sits as the weakest member of the "Mayor and Council".
The Mayor of any city is seen as a city leader and an executive. This is often true in Tucson as well. We have a City Manager system in Tucson which takes away any executive power from our elected Mayor. Additionally, our Mayor votes last and can't vote on emergency measures or the hiring or firing of the City Manager. That means that a Council Member's vote holds more sway when it comes to actually making policy decisions.

Second: Tucson tends to experience a predictable 10% surge during Mayoral elections.
Tucson elections are consistently predictable. Outside of the trends of voter concern or apathy, our population votes for Mayor at a higher rate over mid-town elections without the Mayor. Predictability can lead to targeting, which can lead to a disenfranchisement of the population as a whole.

Third: The timing for the election assures that Tucson is disproportionately represented.
A predictable surge allows Wards 1, 2 and 4 to have more say in the selection of Mayor simply because their Council Members are on the ballot. Though it is true that mid-town voters are not prevented from voting and do have a say regarding Council under our current at-large system. Still, the elections are historically lop-sided.

Elections should be fair to all citizens. Our system for electing the Mayor is far from fair. Each campaign, though, must address as much as is feasibly possible without complicating the basic argument. We believed that the solution muddied up the process of bringing a better and more fair election system to Tucson. Therefore, problems with the current system, as it applies to the position of Mayor, must wait for a better time and a better solution to the problem.

Alas, our solution to this complex problem was also problematic. So we pulled the idea.