Why would the San Mateo County Supervisors refuse to give voters the option of changing the method of electing supervisors? 57 of 58 counties in California use a district-specific system, San Mateo County is alone in making candidates run county-wide.
The current system of electing Supervisors benefits incumbents, discourages political newcomers and fosters races in which no real issues are debated or discussed. The opportunity for legitimate candidates to mount a solid campaign is hampered by the high cost of running an expensive county-wide (as opposed to a district-specific) race. The benefits of district-specific elections bring out candidates who are actually connected to their district and more competitive races giving voters better choice.
Among the reasons given by supervisors to remain in the current jurassic voting system include:
- “We don’t want to be SF County”: Interesting objection, but dislike of a single instance is hardly grounds to ignore 56 other counties who have successfully implemented this standard.
- “Democracy is Expensive”: The notion of putting artificial barriers to keep the process expensive only perpetuates the growing cost of campaigning.
- “If it ain’t broke…”: The Grand Jury and the Charter Review Committee felt the system was clearly “broken.” After months of study, the conclusion was clear and and the question of changing the voting system ought to be put to the voters.
The debate on whether or not this change is right for San Mateo County would have been an important one to have. We are living in extraordinary circumstances and need leadership who can stand up to the challenge of our demanding times. Sadly, this debate is now moot and the lingering question remains whether the people of San Mateo County were served by this decision. One would be hard pressed to say we were.
