Sometimes, our political party system makes little sense.
Over time, each party has changed what they stand for. Republicans were once a party of progressivism, and the Democrats were mired in an agrarian past. There was a time prior to our current primary system that the political party machinery carefully selected candidates who could reach the broadest appeal. Today, the system favors ideology over pragmatism, gridlock over sustainable results. The primary system is dominated by very narrow ideological bases that nearly make it impossible to reach consensus.
But where the system is truly incomprehensible is the down-ballot races in small communities. Greenfield, Fortville, and McCordsville, for example, are but a few of thousands of small communities that will select officeholders this year based on party affiliation. In other years, we elect such positions as surveyor, coroner, township trustee and advisory boards, in which party identification is wholly meaningless. Does a coroner make political decisions? Of course not. The surveyor? Does a trustee view his or her decision-making on political lines? Would the McCordsville Town Council make different decisions if Democrats rather than Republicans sat on it? How about Fortville? For that matter, do you really think having a Democratic or Republican mayor or council majority make any difference in governance?
For most of my life, Greenfield had a Democratic mayor and a city council composed mainly of Republicans. According to one local resident who has had especially close ties to city government, in all that time there has been only one council member who raised up partisanship in city council meetings. In other words, political party and ideological bent had little if anything to do with the results of running our city government. I cannot imagine it being any different in any other relatively small city in America.
Why, then, do we select candidates for such offices in this manner? Patronage was once the answer, but that is no longer of much relevance. Absent any mention of political parties in the Constitution, the major parties created a system of selection which has, over time, evolved into what we now consider tradition. Tradition makes us at ease with a process we have known for a long time. Tradition, nevertheless, does not guarantee an efficient manner of doing things. Obviously, party identification, with a party logo beside a candidate’s name, makes it so much easier for voters to make their choices. But that does not help voters make informed choices. It is also true that party affiliation leads to increased voting on down-ballot races. Likewise, Indiana’s straight-party ballot vote further increases the number of votes. But is the total vote count the primary objective?
I realize changing our selection process would be a royal pain in the nether regions, and I do not claim to be wise enough to offer an alternative. I do think alternatives are possible. It would, however, require voters to get off their sofas and spend an extra effort to discover who these office-seekers are and what they can bring to the task of good governance. So yes, the net result would be a decreased vote total in a number of races. However, I would much rather see 500 informed voters selecting an officeholder than 3,000 or more uninformed voters with no clue who they voted for.
Some will see my byline and assume my viewpoint is all about getting Democrats elected locally. Let’s be honest. While I think that would be a positive result, my argument remains the same in Democratic strongholds. Political affiliation is not relevant at many levels of government, so why should political party matter at those levels?
Michael Adkins formerly was chairman of the Hancock County Democratic Party.
