ShareThis Page
G. Terry Madonna & Michael Young: Choices overwhelming for Pennsylvania voters | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

G. Terry Madonna & Michael Young: Choices overwhelming for Pennsylvania voters

1150597_web1_Vnd-elecfeature1-110718
A voter makes her way past campaign signs as she walks to Tenth Street Elementary School in Oakmont to cast her ballot Nov. 6, 2018.

Government in Pennsylvania can seem underwhelming sometimes: The lack of a responsive Legislature comes to mind, as does a baffling irrational and inefficient tax system, an indifferently maintained highway system, and a structural framework better fitted to the 19th century than the 21st.

But there is one arena where the state overwhelms by comparison almost every other state — and that is in its vast number of local government entities. Pennsylvania’s 67 counties encapsulate some 2,561 “incorporated” local governments, including hundreds of boroughs, townships and cities. That doesn’t include the state’s 500 school districts or some 1,500 “authorities” with taxing or fiscal powers (such as sewer and water authorities). Only Texas and Illinois have more local governments than the Keystone State.

The governments of these incorporated units are chosen every four years in so-called off-year or odd-year elections. 2019 will be such an election, with party primaries scheduled for May 21 and the general election Nov. 5.

When voters head to the primary polls this year they will confront a bewildering welter of possible candidate choices for a wide variety of offices. It’s not uncommon for voters to be asked to choose from 20 to 30 candidates seeking nomination to a dozen or so offices, some obscure, but many critical to the operations of local government. Voter confusion is inevitable.

In addition to judicial races there are also a large number of elections scheduled for mayors, township commissioners and supervisors, and other local officials, along with school board directors.

Primary turnout in most areas doesn’t exceed 20 percent of the electorate — and of that dismal number, perhaps a quarter of voters will have some knowledge about who is seeking these posts or will reasonably understand the functions performed by the officeholders. Voters still get left holding the short straw in this game, explaining in part why so few even participate in primary elections.

Yet, while the electorate is sometimes criticized for not “being informed,” the reality is this complicated system makes it virtually impossible for voters to unravel their choices — a task compounded by asking them to vote for offices that in many cases should be appointed rather than elected.

Local governments are vital institutions and getting qualified people in sensitive positions is essential to achieving a functioning democracy. But voting to fill many of the offices we now fill electorally makes no sense. It mocks the notion of an informed voter making sound choices. The reality is that many of these contests are more lottery than election, decided by chance such as ballot position, name recognition or interest group endorsement.

Appointing statewide appellate judges through some sort of merit system would be a good first step to resolving the voter overload imposed by the existing system. Alas, it is also an option Pennsylvania has repeatedly rejected, making the state now one of only eight that elect all judges in partisan elections.

But the voter overload problem is not limited to the judicial branch. Why, for example, should voters be asked to make electoral judgments about county row offices, such as prothonotary, clerk of courts or register of wills? These are clearly administrative functions best carried out by those chosen for their administrative abilities. And there are other potential offices among the many dozens’ voters are asked to fill that might better be filled by appointment.

Proposals to substitute appointment systems for elections often elicit charges of elitism, but in reality the present system is elitist. It produces a process which cynically manipulates voters, camouflaging it with the illusion that voters are making meaningful and informed decisions. Substituting a transparent appointment-based system would allow voters to actually focus on electoral choices that really matter, help restore accountability to local government, and nudge the state further into the 21st century.

That is the sort of things elections are supposed to do.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.