2011 Local Election: Pluses and Minuses of Running a ‘Slate’

As the potential candidates for Royal Oak commissioner and mayor pulled petitions, I suggested that two or three wouldn't make it to the ballot. Of the 11 who pulled petitions, 8 are left. The three who dropped out are Nick Britsky and Calvin Kattolak for commissioner, and former commissioner Stephen Miller, who is said to have pulled petitions for both commissioner and mayor. (Earlier in the year, Steve had insisted he would not run.) So Jim Ellison is unopposed for mayor, and the 7 hoping to replace commissioners Andrzejak, Drinkwine, and Semchena are Kyle DuBuc, Michael Fournier, George Gomez, Peggy K. Goodwin, Richard Karlowski, William A Shaw, and Scott Warheit.

The Daily Tribune has already published an excellent introduction to the candidates; the weeklies, Eccentric and Review, will cover developments; and RoyalOakForum.com has threads dealing with the 2011 local election, among which the first snarky comments appear.

Pluses and Minuses of running as a slate

Versagi Voice will begin its campaign coverage by offering a primer for those of my readers who, I'm sure, reflect the uncertainty of many about talk of a "slate." Oversimplified, a slate is a group of candidates who choose to be identified primarily as a group, for one reason or another. The most usual reason to join a slate is to make sure voters understand a common mindset is being offered, and both Republicans and Democrats have employed slates.

A slate by itself is not controversial except to doctrinaires. But candidates and voters must make judgments re: two or three characteristics of a slate.

►= Pro . . .  ~ = Con

►Nonpartisan election or not, a slate makes it easy for voters to identify the dominant unifying mindset the individuals share. A slate serves best those residents whose vote is based more on mindset/philosophy than on candidate.

~ Nonpartisan election or not, a slate makes it easy for voters to identify the dominant unifying mindset the individuals share. To win, your base has to be able to overcome your avowed opposition plus win enough Independents.

~ A single-issue candidate is more likely to reject a slate, whether the issue is abortion or Emagine or how tall grass should be allowed to grow.

►Shared campaign expenses and in-kind services lower each individual's need for money and save shoe leather. Campaign literature can emphasize the collective effort.

~ If the main identity which comes through is of the group, voters who are favorable to one candidate, on the slate or not, may choose to vote for that candidate and for no other. I think the term for that is "plunking."

~ Not entirely in jest, forum sponsors have suggested that slates should appoint a spokesperson to represent them, to free more time for questions during a public debate.

►Participating in a slate demonstrates an individual's willingness to work as a team.

~ What happens when a slate member disagrees with the slate's majority opinion? Which wins: loyalty to the team, to himself, to the public?

~ Participating in a slate demonstrates an individual's lack of confidence in her/himself.