Could Buffalo Become A City Without A Mayor?

[M II A II R II K]

Could Buffalo Become A City Without A Mayor?


Jul 27, 2021

By Al Vaughter

Read More: https://www.news10.com/news/could-bu...thout-a-mayor/

…..

The Buffalo Common Council is studying a change in the city’s form of government which would abolish the office of mayor. University councilman Rasheed Wyatt says Buffalo is one of the poorest cities in the country, and it has been that way for more than 40 years. Governance at city hall has also been the same and Wyatt says it is time to change.

- Wyatt says Buffalo should look at changing its form of governance, abolishing the office of mayor in favor of a city manager who answers to the common council. “This model, I think over time, will prove itself that it could be the model that could help us turn that tide so we are not talking about being the third poorest city in the nation,” he added. The common council approved Wyatt’s resolution, which directs council staff to study a possible change in the city’s form of government. — Mayor Byron Brown says, buffalo already has a person to manage the city’s affairs – and it is the mayor – who, Brown points out, has done many good things for the city. “Well there is a huge difference,” Brown said. “The mayor is elected by the people, is directly accountable to the people.”

- There are 62 cities in the state of New York and about a dozen have a city manager – but only two of those cities are run without a mayor. Batavia, which has a city manager who is hired and directed by the city council, and Long Beach City on Long Island. — “Currently everybody votes for the mayor,” UB political science professor Shawn Donohue said. “What would replace it would be, if you can get five of the nine common council members to agree on the city manager, they would pick who is in charge.” — Donohue also points out city manager form could make governance less democratic. “You have, let’s say 55 to 66 percent of the city, [they] could be in a position where they’ve got a lot more than their fair share of resources from the city, why would you ever want to give that up?” Donohue said.

…..

[xzmattzx]

Governance at city hall has also been the same and Wyatt says it is time to change.

When you decide the winner of the office in a primary race, it's time to change things up.

This is a good case-in-point for always considering the other political party. If you will always vote for your political party in order to keep the other one from losing, then your political party never has to do anything for you, the voter. Politicians should never be able to count on votes from various blocs (Blacks, Evangelicals, gun owners, city dwellers, etc), because then they can move on from those blocs and concentrate on the ones on the fence.

So if a city collectively never considers voting for a Republican for a mayor, which is the case in several large cities over the past 50 or 75 years, then Democratic candidates don't really have to do anything, because they know people will vote for them anyway.

This goes the other way, of course. If a state or place continues to elect Republicans for decades on end, then Republicans don't ever have to actually do anything.

[benp]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

When you decide the winner of the office in a primary race, it's time to change things up.

This is a good case-in-point for always considering the other political party. If you will always vote for your political party in order to keep the other one from losing, then your political party never has to do anything for you, the voter. Politicians should never be able to count on votes from various blocs (Blacks, Evangelicals, gun owners, city dwellers, etc), because then they can move on from those blocs and concentrate on the ones on the fence.

So if a city collectively never considers voting for a Republican for a mayor, which is the case in several large cities over the past 50 or 75 years, then Democratic candidates don't really have to do anything, because they know people will vote for them anyway.

This goes the other way, of course. If a state or place continues to elect Republicans for decades on end, then Republicans don't ever have to actually do anything.

As long as there are primary elections, candidates still have to "do" things. If an opposition party is so disliked by voters that they do not even field a candidate, it sounds like the problem is with the opposition party itself - not the voters and not the system.

If "straight-ticket" voting is considered an issue, an option could be non-partisan ballots, where a candidate's affiliation is not listed, and where the winner is whoever carries a greater than 50% majority of the votes. This is how mayors in Houston and other Texas cities are elected. Of course parties still give endorsements, but candidates can ride the fence in order to appeal to a broader base of voters.

[eschaton]

While I think this is a reprehensible move by Buffalo, there is a clear way that cities can ensure candidates like this have a harder time winning: Set municipal elections to align with major federal elections. Ideally this would mean mayors are elected in presidential years, but midterm years as well are acceptable. Just don't have it in odd years, and in particular don't have election days on random days which don't align with the regular primary/general election calendar.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by benp

If "straight-ticket" voting is considered an issue, an option could be non-partisan ballots, where a candidate's affiliation is not listed, and where the winner is whoever carries a greater than 50% majority of the votes. This is how mayors in Houston and other Texas cities are elected. Of course parties still give endorsements, but candidates can ride the fence in order to appeal to a broader base of voters.

Yeah, a lot of cities don't have partisan elections. Partisan elections don't make sense in cities that are not close to evenly divided in their political affiliation.

[jmecklenborg]

Cincinnati had a ceremonial mayor (simply the council member who got the most votes) for about 75 years. Aside from a few appointments, they got the prestige of saying they were the mayor, and that was about it.

Unfortunately, two of the three mayors we've had since the switch to the independently-elected "strong" (but not really that strong) mayor have been total stooges. One scandal after another.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Cincinnati had a ceremonial mayor (simply the council member who got the most votes) for about 75 years. Aside from a few appointments, they got the prestige of saying they were the mayor, and that was about it.

Unfortunately, two of the three mayors we've had since the switch to the independently-elected "strong" (but not really that strong) mayor have been total stooges. One scandal after another.

Miami's mayor is basically ceremonial. He has 0 power (can't vote on laws, has no veto power...etc).

[BigDipper 80]

Dayton also has a "weak mayor". All of the executive power basically rests with the city manager and the mayor is really just another city commissioner, although elected in a separate election. I've spent too much time trying to explain to people that the mayor is basically a figurehead but they still insist on blaming all of the City's ills on that office.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, a lot of cities don't have partisan elections. Partisan elections don't make sense in cities that are not close to evenly divided in their political affiliation.

Yeah, the democratic party has been so thoroughly entrenched in Chicago for so long that the city switched to non-partisan elections decades ago for mayor, aldermen, and other city-wide elected offices (treasurer and clerk).

[Antares41]

Originally Posted by benp

As long as there are primary elections, candidates still have to "do" things. If an opposition party is so disliked by voters that they do not even field a candidate, it sounds like the problem is with the opposition party itself - not the voters and not the system.

I agree that with this statement. What so radical about listening to the people and aligning your party to the needs of the people? However what really raises my suspicion is the timing. All of a sudden it becomes a topic when a India Walton, a socialist, upset the incumbent democratic Mayor Brown, 52% to 45% in the primary. This almost assures her election as Mayor. Now all of a sudden there a problem with having a Mayor, or, should I say a socialist mayor. No, the victory of India Walton was no mistake. You have a city with ~30% poverty rate that looking for change. Neither party has heeded those voices. Personally I feel Mayor Brown has done a decent job, however, his administration could have been more aggressive in bring development beyond the downtown corridor. Nevertheless, in the end Brown was a four term Mayor whose time had run out. The system worked fine, both parties are in a tizzy because they don't know what's coming next. But the people have spoken and the decision should remain with the people.

[benp]

Originally Posted by Antares41

I agree that with this statement. What so radical about listening to the people and aligning your party to the needs of the people? However what really raises my suspicion is the timing. All of a sudden it becomes a topic when a India Walton, a socialist, upset the incumbent democratic Mayor Brown, 52% to 45% in the primary. This almost assures her election as Mayor. Now all of a sudden there a problem with having a Mayor, or, should I say a socialist mayor. No, the victory of India Walton was no mistake. You have a city with ~30% poverty rate that looking for change. Neither party has heeded those voices. Personally I feel Mayor Brown has done a decent job, however, his administration could have been more aggressive in bring development beyond the downtown corridor. Nevertheless, in the end Brown was a four term Mayor whose time had run out. The system worked fine, both parties are in a tizzy because they don't know what's coming next. But the people have spoken and the decision should remain with the people.

I live in a district that voted for Walton, but based on the number of Brown signs in the neighborhood ("WRITE DOWN MAYOR BROWN"), and Buffalo's history of mayors elected by write-in, I think Brown has a very, very good chance of winning this election.

Walton's victory was more of an anti-establishment vote by Progressives, there was very little actual pro-Walton support, as she was mostly unknown by 98% of the city. Brown, on the other hand, had the support of almost half that voted in the Democratic primary (winning almost all of the East Side districts). And, any anti-Brown sentiment by the opposition party has now been redirected toward Walton, so strange bedfellows like Carl Paladino (R who ran against Cuomo in 2010) now are supporting Brown, and will draw more R voters to the polls.

[Antares41]

Originally Posted by benp

I live in a district that voted for Walton, but based on the number of Brown signs in the neighborhood ("WRITE DOWN MAYOR BROWN"), and Buffalo's history of mayors elected by write-in, I think Brown has a very, very good chance of winning this election.

Walton's victory was more of an anti-establishment vote by Progressives, there was very little actual pro-Walton support, as she was mostly unknown by 98% of the city. Brown, on the other hand, had the support of almost half that voted in the Democratic primary (winning almost all of the East Side districts). And, any anti-Brown sentiment by the opposition party has now been redirected toward Walton, so strange bedfellows like Carl Paladino (R who ran against Cuomo in 2010) now are supporting Brown, and will draw more R voters to the polls.

I think all that is fine. If Brown wants to put some "real effort" into a write-in campaign that's his right; let the voters decide. But he loss the primary and even when the absentee ballots came in the size of the margin only grew. But again, my grip is regarding any talk about changing the current election system and/or eliminating the Mayoral position. The victory by Walton, in my mind, seem to have precipitated this idea. Change, solely based on the fact that it produce a candidate that neither Democrat or Republican wants to see get a toe-hold to the local political machine, speaks more of the quest to maintain power versus fulfilling the will of the people.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by benp

As long as there are primary elections, candidates still have to "do" things. If an opposition party is so disliked by voters that they do not even field a candidate, it sounds like the problem is with the opposition party itself - not the voters and not the system.

If "straight-ticket" voting is considered an issue, an option could be non-partisan ballots, where a candidate's affiliation is not listed, and where the winner is whoever carries a greater than 50% majority of the votes. This is how mayors in Houston and other Texas cities are elected. Of course parties still give endorsements, but candidates can ride the fence in order to appeal to a broader base of voters.

The non-partisan voting is one way to curb this, but party endorsements can taint it.

Primaries do force some exchange of ideas and reaching out to voters, but when you get voters who will vote for whoever has the D or the R in front of their name, you get situations like this in Buffalo. Would any voters switch to voting Republican to keep this Democratic candidate out of office? Or will everyone just say "Oh well" and take what the primary gives them? If it's the latter, then the Democratic party (in this case) can put whoever they want up for election, and no one would have the balls to force a change through the general election.

It ultimately comes down to voters taking responsibility and researching all candidates. They should research candidates in the primary, and research candidates in the overall election. But not many people research candidates during primaries, and even fewer research candidates from both/all parties when voting in local elections, and just follow their party.

So when people complain that their city or state never does anything for them, the old adage that you get what you vote for comes to mind.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

The non-partisan voting is one way to curb this, but party endorsements can taint it.

Primaries do force some exchange of ideas and reaching out to voters, but when you get voters who will vote for whoever has the D or the R in front of their name, you get situations like this in Buffalo. Would any voters switch to voting Republican to keep this Democratic candidate out of office? Or will everyone just say "Oh well" and take what the primary gives them? If it's the latter, then the Democratic party (in this case) can put whoever they want up for election, and no one would have the balls to force a change through the general election.

It ultimately comes down to voters taking responsibility and researching all candidates. They should research candidates in the primary, and research candidates in the overall election. But not many people research candidates during primaries, and even fewer research candidates from both/all parties when voting in local elections, and just follow their party.

So when people complain that their city or state never does anything for them, the old adage that you get what you vote for comes to mind.

We have non-partisan local elections down here. Just a slate of candidates run. Some are democrats, some are republicans. The ballot may have 7 or 8 names on it. No R or D are next to any names. It may hurt a Dem candidate if there are 6 D's running and 2 R's as the 2 R's will end up getting a higher % for each individual as the 6 D's would split their side more. Then the 2 top vote getters meet in a run off. In Miami-Dade's case it has led to a long string of moderate politicians. Basically technocrats (keeps stuff working, trash on time, trains running...etc), which in my opinion is the best result for local governments. Some ideologs might disagree.

[The North One]

What a joke.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by benp

I live in a district that voted for Walton, but based on the number of Brown signs in the neighborhood ("WRITE DOWN MAYOR BROWN"), and Buffalo's history of mayors elected by write-in, I think Brown has a very, very good chance of winning this election.

He has zero chance, he lost the primary, he's not winning a write-in. This is a clown circus show. Makes establishment Dems look sad and despicable and the enemy of common people, which they are.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by dave8721

We have non-partisan local elections down here. Just a slate of candidates run. Some are democrats, some are republicans. The ballot may have 7 or 8 names on it. No R or D are next to any names. It may hurt a Dem candidate if there are 6 D's running and 2 R's as the 2 R's will end up getting a higher % for each individual as the 6 D's would split their side more. Then the 2 top vote getters meet in a run off. In Miami-Dade's case it has led to a long string of moderate politicians. Basically technocrats (keeps stuff working, trash on time, trains running...etc), which in my opinion is the best result for local governments. Some ideologs might disagree.

Seems like it is fairly alright.

It would be interesting to make voters pick one Democrat and on Republican in some type of local election, and force a bipartisan vote. I wonder what would happen if you made anyone voting do that. Can you imagine if Republicans had a say in the Democratic primary, and Democrats had a say in the Republican primary, in a Presidential election? Would party members vote for someone in the other party that they thought they could defeat? Or would they vote for a candidate in the other party that they would hedge their bets on and take as a consolation prize in case their party loses?