It's taken me a few weeks to put pen to paper ... or rather finger to keyboard because to the extent elections are a team sport, my team got clobbered!
With the one bright spot for "my agenda" being in Routt County where voters in Steamboat Springs and Routt County voted in favor of staying the course with their medical marijauana programs. Aside from that it was defeat after defeat after defeat for the things I care about.
First allow me to say the following which will be enough whining to get you wasted off of my sour grapes:
I don't know if folks like "Team Ft. Collins" ( a group of "civic-minded" beer producers who bankrolled the effort to remove medical marijuana centers from Ft. Collins) and PLAN/Sierra, the majority (read only) organized political party in Boulder's nominally non-partisan City elections inteneded to ply their case in 2011 because this was their best electorate. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that thier timing was just a stroke of luck by folks who believe in what they do and just got lucky. But what is clear is that if you are trying to win a battle of (pick your word, local conservatism, status quo, re-affirmation of the claims of those who already have the power) any political strategist will tell you this is accomplished by first picking your electorate and then ensuring that electorate is small and conservative.
Statistically the smallest and most conservative electorate is the odd number year before a presidential election. Add to that, this year was a bonus for non-intentional voter suppresion because our election day with an all mail-in ballot was a week earlier than the calendar election day.
I don't accuse the victors of this year's election of manipulating odds to their advantage any more than I accuse the loosers for failing to factor in the electorate when mounting campaigns that in hindsight were doomed. I just point out that the deck was heavily stacked for the proponents of the winners to win and the proponents of the loosers to loose not based on the merits of their campaigns but due to the nature of the electorate.
There is an elitist view that the "off-year" (that there is even such a term as "off-year" I think strengthens my argument) electorates deserve their over-sized influence because they are the dedicated and informed voter. Those who make that argument sometimes also go as far to say that this electorate has the largest stake in the outcomes ... and with that part of the argument I tend to agree.
However,
This eliteist view is ademocratic and lends itself to elections that are based on misinformation. We already have a problem where there is a lack of interest in local issues. As a Juilliard grad and former professional classical musician who now fools around in politics I am perfectly aware that the thing that orchestral concert audiences and off-year election electorates have in common is that they are a wierd minority. It is also obvious that the downfall of both classical music and local politics is their exclusivity. I believe that an election is a mirror in which we can look at society and anytime you have participation of less than 100% then your image is distorted by the same percentage of those who did not vote. In 2011 that distortion is about 60%.
The result on the local and national level is government that works well for a small group of people i.e. the simple majority of the minority of people who participate and for everyone else ... well it's a crapshoot.
Sure perhpas the majority of people who don't vote in municipal elections are just so happy with the status-quo that they can't even pause their celebration long enough to cast a ballot to say so. I would believe that if when asked non-voters would say that. Non-voters are very forthcoming in their rationale for not participating in my experience, but I've never heard that complete and utter satisifaction with the status-quo as the reason.
So in an off-year, small conservative electorate a nominal tax increase to fund our public schools went down in flames, the residents of Ft. Collins banished medical marijuana centers from their City and in Boulder the entrenched political establishment had a landslide in the council election.
Voters in Ft. Collins have simply been duped. When you have local elections where there are few resources to get good information it is easy to see how opponents of Colorado's medical marijuana program could be convinced that by eliminating medical marijuana centers they would be eliminating medical marijuana in their community. Of course the reality is that while the heavily regulated medical marijuana centers go away, the demand for marijuana won't change at all. As a result expect to see the re-establishment of the black market for marijuana in Ft. Collins as well as a surge in home grows which are still protected under the state constitution. Not to mention all the driving to Boulder and Denver of Ft. Collins residents to buy legal medical marijuana from licesened centers which is bad for the carbon footprint ... but of course even a climate hawk like myself must surely see the value of sacrificing some vehicle miles traveled for the sake of the children ... who can now go back to buying their marijuana from a local resurgent black market instead of being turned away by licesned centers.
Speaking of being a climtate hawk ... as I mentioned before I am one and environmentally concerned Boulder narrowly approved a measure that I believe is actually a step backwards disguised as a step forward in passing a meausure that allows Boulder to form a municipal utility. As I have said in earlier posts I was not opposed to this because I don't think the City could run a utility. I opposed it because I don't believe the City ever will run its electric utility.
Morever this is sacrificing the war to win a battle. Climate change is a global problem and as much as I would love for the world to follow Boulder's example in most things thats simply not reality. In order to effect the greatest change the fastest we need to be working regionally, nationally and globaly instead of pulling up our drawbridge. Instead of the debate being about renewable energy the debate became about just about everything else ... corporate america, money in elections, conservative vs. liberal ...
Well here is a right-wing conservative heralding the renewable energy portfolio of that evil corporation Xcel energy in a twitter posting yesterday:
Oh oops! That's liberal, total climate hawk (but pragmatic enough to understand how solutions actually work) Colorado Senator Mark Udall talking about how the corporation Boulder voters narrowly banished for "not producing enough renewable energy" is the WORLD"S LARGEST PRODUCER OF WIND POWER.
Look I'm all for reform and punishing those who do the wrong thing, the problem with 2B and 2C was that this was never about the merits of Xcel it was a proxy war about corporate vs. local power. And I agree with the sentitment however Xcel energy has tremendous regional influence on people's energy use choices. Unless indiviuals everywhere, not just Boulder start making better choices what we do locally won't much matter. It would be great if the passage of 2B and 2C start a nationwide move towards micro-generation, smart energy brokerage and increased adoption of renewable energy.
But with what capital? What infrastructure? Xcel energy is a corporation, a large one and the last lesson we should be teaching corporate America is that if you dare be the leader in what we want we will punish you. My interest is the maximum amount of renewable energy on the grid in the shortest amount of time. 2B and 2C may just yet achieve that goal and I hope that it does and I'm proven wrong. But for now it seems that this idea was not unwise, it was just pennywise.
And finally the council election. What is clear is that PLAN/Sierra have the superior ground game and for that they deserve to win the election and they did walking away. I just wonder if this built-in advantage could sustain a larger electorate. I own that my choices for candidates where not the most-likely Boulder City Council winners and I'm not surprised by the outcome except for one, Dan King.
Really? the guy that owns a zero-waste hotel is not environmentally active enough to win a seat on Boulder City Council? Is the idea of running a business and creating jobs that awful?
The answer is yes if you were to only poll the wierdos like myself who vote in off year elections. Though Boulder debates when viewed from outside the City Limits appear to be the struggle between liberal and liberaller ... If you really wanted to make an analogy that someone outside Boulder could understand, PLAN/Sierra is the organized, disciplined conservative party and "everyone else" is the disorganized progressives who spend so much time trying to determine good policy they forget factor in good politics and as a reuslt simply cannot win an election. This situation is exacerbated by the soft voter suppresion of off-year elections.
I don't think PLAN/Sierra are evil political masterminds nor do I think they are that wrong or wrong that often. In fact my fist entree into Boulder politics was through PLAN when I met Lisa Morzel and Pat Shanks at a gargage sale, I consider them both friends and I've been to parties at both of their houses. I shared a flight to New York with Ben Bender once and we had a great chat. The issue is that I have finally come to determine that PLAN/Sierra fundamentally believe that Boulder's best days are behind it and thefore recommend a back to the future strategy. It is my view after spending considerable time in both camps that it is the business and recreational community that are the true progressives. These are the people that are actually proposing and supporting policy that will increase diveristy and livability in our community. I realize this is counter-intutitve. I understand that it most places the Chamber of Commerce run everything with a iron-conservative fist.
But this is Boulder! And Boulder is wierd so it would only make perfect sense that in Boulder it is the Chamber of Commerce that is the progressive group with no political power.
What is hearting is that in the weeks leading up to the election this odd situation was starting to be discussed openly. And this discussion seems to be sustained. I am glad to see so much talk of election reform in the City. I happen to agree with those who think that even year elections, the election of council in representative districts instead of all at-large and the direct election of the Mayor would result in city leadership that reflects more accuratelly the direction Boulderites would support were they paying attention.
Reformers in Boulder have one additional challenge. Life in Boulder is pretty awesome. Much like the president has had to defend the stimulus package with "it could've been worse" which though true is hard to quantify, Boulder's reformers have to hang their hat on "it could be a lot better" again true, but hard to quantify. For this reason I think moving the election to an even year is the most critical reform. Since it will be nigh impossible to convince the small conservative off-year electorate that reform would be better when its clearly contrary to their interests, the only chance reform has is by chosing an electorate that reform would actually benefit, the larger voting bloc.
Previous attempts at election reform failed because of they tried to convince those who benefit from the status-quo to look past their interest towards the greater good, a fool's errand I don't care where you are. Politics in Boulder are the same as they are in any small city, those who have the power have no incentive to yeild it others. Previous election reform measures failed becasue they were on off-year ballots. The champions of election reform have the best chance in four years next year. A ballot measure to create representative districts or move municipal elections to even years has it's best shot at passing in 2012. I would also think that those who oppose such reforms should want to see it on a 2012 ballot as well. If reform failed on a 2012 ballot that would give the city's political establishment the greatest mandate to stay the course.
Living outside of Boulder for a few years and coming back gives one some great perspective on the place. Boulder is a great place, but it is far from the sustainable, environmentally responsible, intellectually diverse and embracing community that it could be or one can be lulled into thinking it is if you don't leave town enough. I believe Boulder can walk its talk and that doing so wouldn't even be that hard but it will require not a revoultion, but something more difficult to achieve, a minor course correction, something that I don't believe that the current political establishment of the city is capable of unfortunately.
Comments