Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Rules Must Be Consistent for Some to Take Slating Process Seriously


I believe that there is value in slating. I do. I know that puts me at odds with many people in my own party. Some folks probably have stopped reading after that second sentence because they don't see the value in a party recommending candidates out of a crowded field. Well, keep reading.

If we are going to continue to have slating and slating conventions, then I think the rules should be standardized for each convention and not changed in ways that can be perceived to protect candidates before each convention. I think this would make the process of slating seem fairer for the average, everyday slating voter.

I believe, for example, that the slating for the four at-large City-County Council seats should have been done differently. Voters should have gotten the opportunity to select the four candidates they wanted to select out of six. There could have been measures put in place to prevent system-gaming and bullet voting rather than what occurred. That was that the candidates each were given four slots to file in and then voters had to make a choice.

In my case, I had promised my vote to both John Barth and to Pat Andrews. I was forced to make a choice when I stepped into the booth to vote for slating, and I was forced to potentially disappoint one of my friends. It put me in a tough position. I’ve been there before with judicial slating, too. I guess from now on, I’ll wait until I hear what the rules are going to be before I promise my vote to anyone. That wouldn’t happen if the rules were always the same each year and always clearly stated.

I actually think that people who potentially might run against the slate would respect the wishes of the slating voters more if they thought the process was fair. As it stands now, you have two candidates that lost at slating that might challenge the slate. I have not talked to either in depth about it, but I haven’t heard they’ve withdrawn from consideration, too. That is a different animal altogether, and it’s not unprecedented that someone who is not slated gets through. In 2008, Judge Kim Brown bucked the slate and was elected over the party recommendations.

So, I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I hear belly aching every year after slating, and I just think the party could do a better job administrating it. I do applaud those that did apply for slating, though. We had a wonderful crop of talented candidates ready to serve this city and take back the City-County Building. Come May, I have no doubt that the best candidates will win.

As for slating, let's put away that controversy for a year.

There were positives from slating. Over 700 people and 513 announced delegates attended nearly filling the room at the Convention Center. That easily outdistanced the Republicans who reported 300 or so folks at their convention held at Brebeuf Jesuit High School.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think when there is a deadline to file and the fee for slating that it should apply to all. One candidate was allowed to pay the slating fee several days late. Perhaps two were.....just because you have a high profile supporter does not give you the right to violate rules and deadlines.

Anonymous said...

Who filed late?

Anonymous said...

And likewise candidates who lost at slating SHOULD END THEIR CAMPAIGNS! Running against the slate in the primary does nothing but splinter the party, when it should be preparing for the real opposition, the RepublicN and Libertarian candidates.

But I think we will see at least one "sore loser" not withdraw, namely Pat Andrews ( or so I have heard). At the end of the day, you ran, and you lost. Take it with pride, and regroup for the next time around. Don't divide the party and weaken it. Did you not listen to Congressman Carson's speech Satruday?!

Anonymous said...

There is value in district slating because it gives candidates a rough idea of their level of party support. Now this only works if appointed PC and VPC are residents in a precinct of a contested race. If you don’t live in the precinct you shouldn’t be voting! Is it fair to candidates running in a race in Warren Township precincts to have voters who live in Pike or Washington Township deciding who they feel is the stronger candidate to run. No way!

Establish some rigid rules for slating; all integrity is lost when the rules are changed at the discretion of a County Chair. More credibility is lost here then making the evening news belly bopping a man with a chicken fetish.

Speaking of integrity, it probably would be a good idea to do away with charging a slating fee. Just for fun explain the process of slating to a person who isn’t a part of the party base, watch their reaction to the slating fee part. It reeks of Elitism Luckily for Democrats the Republicans do it too. That shouldn’t be used as an excuse for not doing the right thing.

Slating should be viewed as the preseason or exhibition. We don’t vote for At-Large City Council candidates in slots in the Primary or General Election a slating ballot should reflect the real thing.

I personally believe that a candidate shouldn’t feel obligated to end their campaign based upon the results of slating. Just because a candidate is supported by the party base in a disputable slating race, doesn’t mean they have broad enough appeal to resonate with the Primary and General Election voters. Maybe the candidate on the losing end of slating is actually the stronger candidate to get elected. That’s something every slating voter should take into consideration when expressing who they feel would make the best candidate in the General Election.

Anonymous said...

I wouldnt say that candidates who lose at slating should end their campaigns. It's one thing to lose due to Chairman appointed pc's and another to lose to the voters of our fine city!

Anonymous said...

OK, so then why go through slating if you are not going to abide by the rules? You lose at slating, you back out! Its that simple. you don't agree with slating, then don't participate. Seems reasonable to me.

You cannot have it both ways.

And to address the no slating fees idea - where is the party going to get money for their operating budget? how much did YOU contribute to the party's general fund last year?

Indy Student said...

"Speaking of integrity, it probably would be a good idea to do away with charging a slating fee. Just for fun explain the process of slating to a person who isn’t a part of the party base, watch their reaction to the slating fee part. It reeks of Elitism Luckily for Democrats the Republicans do it too. That shouldn’t be used as an excuse for not doing the right thing."

I actually had lunch about a month or two ago with a Republican friend of mine and that was part of the conversation, how slating works. And my mind was pretty much blown.