Keeping the "status quo"

Austin officially keeps May elections

From the blog posted on Off the Kuff on 09 Oct, 2011 by Charles Kuffner

The blog discusses the recent debate about whether or not to hold the city mayor election and other bond issues in November instead of May. This issue has been the subject of heated debate and is going to continue to be since four city council members voted not to hold the elections in November. They did so in 3 separate votes (citing the city's charter as mandating the elections to be held in May), even though many organizations and people have supported the idea of moving it to November when more people will be in the city to vote. It says that the extremely low voter turnout in May is partly because many students who live here are out of town on summer break and will not get a chance to participate in the elections as well as making it more difficult for service members stationed overseas to cast their ballots. Overall the blog does not react favorably to the Council’s decision not to move the election to Nov 2012.

The intended audience is anyone with a vested interest in democracy (which should be everyone). The blog is intended to stir support with those who will be alienated by the decision mainly students and military personnel. Both of whom in my opinion should definitely be able to have their voices heard. The students are the social and economic lifeblood of Austin and the service members have more than earned their right to have a say in the affairs of the community.

To me the author seems to have plenty of credibility since he is simply stating the facts of the situation and giving some input from a few different sources in the area.

His argument that this was the wrong decision is backed up by common sense. Voter turnout in May has historically been very low, and the argument of the council-people who voted against the proposal saying that they did not believe it was alright for them to extend their tenure by six months. Their argument is not completely without logic, except for the idea of having an election is to hear the voice of the people. If the people aren't given a chance to be heard then democracy is not being served. It also appears to be logical to want the election in Nov since the city spends an estimated $1.2 million extra just to hold the elections in May. We are in a very tuff economic time and a "penny saved is a penny earned" as the proverb goes.

Finally I would just like to concur with the author, and hope the future City Council reconsiders this decision. because it only seems right that we should schedule elections at the most apropriate time for all citizens.