Looking back on this, my first time volunteering for a local campaign – I learned a lot. Not least of which is taking pride even when losing. I was so mystified during the State Democratic Convention here in town that so many people were wearing Hillary t-shirts, etc… even though they knew she was going to lose. I couldn’t understand it. Fast forward a week or two and I realize that there isn’t a lot of shame in it so long as you participated and tried. That’s more than 95% of registered voters in Austin did in my case.
Ultimately I’ve come to realize just how messy Democracy really is – and while they use the vernacular of fighting or competing – it’s really not about winning or losing or at least it shouldn’t be. I’m an idealist at heart and I was perhaps naïve to expect two blushing brides of campaign virginity who would let the voters choose in a distinct competition of civic vision and that both would come out the other side with their reputations intact. Sadly – that was not so.
If the general election at least attempted to do that – the run-off went way off course in their efforts to get people out to vote at all. In the end – I was still comfortable with the vote I made and I very much believe that the less qualified person ended up winning and that it’s a bad portent for Austin.
I’ll get to my ruminations on the future, but first, here are my thoughts on why our campaign lost (there are parallels to the national election for those actively involved there):
Poor Turn Out
- Everybody on May 10th was shocked that so few came out. ~35k people turned out that day and that’s usually the turn out for an off-the-radar run-off. Only ~21k came out in June. 200,000 of the voters that overwhelmed polling stations during the primary stayed home. All the campaigns expected better turn out than usual – or at least the same - not less. Granted – the elections are scheduled to avoid students from skewing the vote (I don’t think anybody says that – but it’s probably true). I’ve never heard anyone say this out loud either – but there’s probably a little hope placed on the uninformed voter who says “I don’t know any of these people! – I’ll vote for the womanâ€
Postmortem on the City Council Election
If you must!
Moderators: arclight, happywaffle
Postmortem on the City Council Election
Last edited by Miggy on June 21st, 2008, 7:21 pm, edited 6 times in total.
And my ruminations on what it holds for our future…
So – while I have my serious serious reservations about Morrison – like it or lump it – she got elected and you and I and everyone will have to work with her over the next couple of years. But what does it all mean? If Austin, at this critical decision point, ostensibly chose her civic vision – what does that hold for the future of this city?
Let me first start off by saying a few things about Austin…
Austin is the 16th largest city in America with ~750,000 people in the incorporated city - 40 states in the union do not have a city as large as Austin within their borders. We have more population alone than the entire states of Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota or Alaska; if you expand it out to the metropolitan statistical area (San Marcos to Round Rock) – we’re ~1.5M people and larger than the population of the 10 smallest states and we are expected to grow further. We need to act like a grown up city and not one that lets a handful of cranky amateurs from a few particular neighborhoods decide our future….especially when their ideas for this city are mired in the past.
The best days of this city could be ahead of us. We’re expected to grow by 3.5% per year as we have consistently over the last century and thereby double in size in twenty years. More people can be seen as a threat or an opportunity. Morrison sees them as a threat to the idea of the small town we already no longer are, Galindo saw them as an opportunity to build an even better city. I’m inclined to see growth in the light of the latter. Great things come from collaboration and dense cities are machines for collaboration. I appreciate people’s looking backwards fondly at the city this used to be – I didn’t live here 30 or 40 years ago – I have no place to speak on those times. I can speak to these times, though, and that this city should look forward to what’s possible.
Preservation most certainly has its place – but the concept of nostalgia is older than the things we’re nostalgic for. In other words – the things we love today replaced the things that someone loved before them. Texans were famously aghast at the height of the UT Tower (‘someone should tell the University that Austin is not Manhattan’ or something like that). The ANC’s ‘Austin shouldn’t turn into Manhattan’ sentiment is not new but history gives us a different perspective. Change happens – it’s part of the creative destruction and progress of any city. The nostalgia will continue to happen, too. Growing pains are difficult. Change is difficult. Not all changes are improvements but all improvements are changes.
Ultimately, the population growth will likely happen regardless of who’s in office, but the policies that Morrison will vote for will most likely force additional suburban sprawl and less of the positive effect that population can have on a city. She’s only one vote out of seven but the center city neighborhoods will likely be kept low-density and become even more unaffordable.
What’s more – this city will likely take even longer to modernize its election system. An instant run-off voting proposal was brought up in 2000 and single-member districts have been proposed for 40 years or more. The ANC (Morrison) has said they supported it in the past, but now that they see that they can get their candidate in without it – something tells me that their enthusiasm might be tempered. I hope I’m wrong and that they stick to that position but I’m doubtful – it’s partly why it’s been defeated 6 times before – it weakens those already in power.
What I think is funny is how surprised people are to learn how backwards their supposedly up-and-coming city is. Hell – I was surprised. Surprised that their city’s council was all put in place by two men and that since the 70's the city has maintained an unwritten gentlemen’s agreement to keep place 2 reserved for Hispanics (it was place 5 until Gus Garcia switched it twenty years ago) and Place 6 for African Americans. In this way they have avoided federal fair voting intervention but have otherwise maintained this archaic system that ghettoizes minorities and marginalizes large swaths of the city. It’s been abolished by most cities in this country because it poorly serves its citizenry. Austin is the largest city in Texas that still has an at-large system.
This sort of just-short-of-cronyism, this validation of a myopic vision, these sort of petty political tactics – they’ve all convinced me that I don’t want to play in this sandbox anymore. I have another friend who might be running for City Council next year – I might vote for him or contribute to his campaign – but I don’t think I will get this invested again. That’s what I learned from this experience.
So – while I have my serious serious reservations about Morrison – like it or lump it – she got elected and you and I and everyone will have to work with her over the next couple of years. But what does it all mean? If Austin, at this critical decision point, ostensibly chose her civic vision – what does that hold for the future of this city?
Let me first start off by saying a few things about Austin…
Austin is the 16th largest city in America with ~750,000 people in the incorporated city - 40 states in the union do not have a city as large as Austin within their borders. We have more population alone than the entire states of Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota or Alaska; if you expand it out to the metropolitan statistical area (San Marcos to Round Rock) – we’re ~1.5M people and larger than the population of the 10 smallest states and we are expected to grow further. We need to act like a grown up city and not one that lets a handful of cranky amateurs from a few particular neighborhoods decide our future….especially when their ideas for this city are mired in the past.
The best days of this city could be ahead of us. We’re expected to grow by 3.5% per year as we have consistently over the last century and thereby double in size in twenty years. More people can be seen as a threat or an opportunity. Morrison sees them as a threat to the idea of the small town we already no longer are, Galindo saw them as an opportunity to build an even better city. I’m inclined to see growth in the light of the latter. Great things come from collaboration and dense cities are machines for collaboration. I appreciate people’s looking backwards fondly at the city this used to be – I didn’t live here 30 or 40 years ago – I have no place to speak on those times. I can speak to these times, though, and that this city should look forward to what’s possible.
Preservation most certainly has its place – but the concept of nostalgia is older than the things we’re nostalgic for. In other words – the things we love today replaced the things that someone loved before them. Texans were famously aghast at the height of the UT Tower (‘someone should tell the University that Austin is not Manhattan’ or something like that). The ANC’s ‘Austin shouldn’t turn into Manhattan’ sentiment is not new but history gives us a different perspective. Change happens – it’s part of the creative destruction and progress of any city. The nostalgia will continue to happen, too. Growing pains are difficult. Change is difficult. Not all changes are improvements but all improvements are changes.
Ultimately, the population growth will likely happen regardless of who’s in office, but the policies that Morrison will vote for will most likely force additional suburban sprawl and less of the positive effect that population can have on a city. She’s only one vote out of seven but the center city neighborhoods will likely be kept low-density and become even more unaffordable.
What’s more – this city will likely take even longer to modernize its election system. An instant run-off voting proposal was brought up in 2000 and single-member districts have been proposed for 40 years or more. The ANC (Morrison) has said they supported it in the past, but now that they see that they can get their candidate in without it – something tells me that their enthusiasm might be tempered. I hope I’m wrong and that they stick to that position but I’m doubtful – it’s partly why it’s been defeated 6 times before – it weakens those already in power.
What I think is funny is how surprised people are to learn how backwards their supposedly up-and-coming city is. Hell – I was surprised. Surprised that their city’s council was all put in place by two men and that since the 70's the city has maintained an unwritten gentlemen’s agreement to keep place 2 reserved for Hispanics (it was place 5 until Gus Garcia switched it twenty years ago) and Place 6 for African Americans. In this way they have avoided federal fair voting intervention but have otherwise maintained this archaic system that ghettoizes minorities and marginalizes large swaths of the city. It’s been abolished by most cities in this country because it poorly serves its citizenry. Austin is the largest city in Texas that still has an at-large system.
This sort of just-short-of-cronyism, this validation of a myopic vision, these sort of petty political tactics – they’ve all convinced me that I don’t want to play in this sandbox anymore. I have another friend who might be running for City Council next year – I might vote for him or contribute to his campaign – but I don’t think I will get this invested again. That’s what I learned from this experience.
Last edited by Miggy on June 22nd, 2008, 5:52 pm, edited 10 times in total.