Boulder Mayors like former hizzoner Matt Appelbaum do more than ribbon-cutting ceremonies, but there’s no telling if he would have won a direct election, potentially denying the city the benefit of his decades in civic experience.

In Brief: The ballot title for Boulder Ballot Measure 2E basically says it would amend the City Charter to provide for “direct election of the mayor by ranked choice (instant runoff) voting?” But voters should know this is an issue deserving of greater attention to detail and context than the ballot title would suggest.

Why or Why Not? Today, the Mayor of Boulder is an elected City Council member who is then elected Mayor by a vote of the nine members of City Council. Council members are elected via a ballot under which voters can choose as many candidates as there are open seats. Let’s say there are five open seats in an election, and under the current system the top four vote-getters would earn four-year terms while the fifth earns a two-year term. Technically, any of the nine Council members could become Mayor, no matter how many votes they earned or where they finished in their Council elections.

2E would change this so the Mayor would still be one of nine Council members but would be elected to a two-year term directly by Boulder voters, and the Mayor’s race would be separate from the Council race. Voters would determine the Mayor through ranked-choice voting (RCV), unless there are three candidates or less, but regular Council seats would not be determined via RCV. The top four finishers in the Council race would earn four-year terms.

Proponents point out that Boulder is the largest city in Colorado that does not elect its Mayor directly. They say a direct election gives all voters a potential say in who becomes Mayor, as opposed to an election among Council members only. They also emphasize that ranked choice voting (RCV) gives voters the option of voting not just for a top choice, but also for choices from second on down, meaning the eventual winner might have some type of support from more voters than in a typical election where voters only get one choice.

Opponents note that Boulder’s Mayoral position is not an executive position, and the Mayor’s votes on ordinances count exactly the same as any other Council member. The city has a “weak mayor / strong City Manager” structure, unlike cities such as Denver in which the Mayor has much more power. In brief, Boulder’s Mayor runs public Council meetings, chairs the Council Agenda Committee, has no veto power, and is recognized as the official head of the city for: ceremonial purposes, by the courts for serving city processes, and by the governor for military purposes.

Also, service as Boulder’s Mayor is considered a part-time position like any Council position, paid only with a stipend of about $200 per meeting or not much more than $10,000 per year. While this admittedly isn’t a perfect comparison, Denver’s Mayor Michael Hancock earns about $175,000 per year. In Boulder, the City Manager is a full-time position, and the current manager Jane Brautigam got a raise to about $271,000 per year in 2019. Nothing in 2E would change the power or pay of Boulder’s Mayor, the structure of city government, or the Mayor’s formal responsibilities.

Voters approved a measure in 2016 setting term limits at three terms for any council member, whether the terms are for two years or four. Under 2E, a candidate would not be eligible to serve as Mayor if “such person has previously served eight years as mayor, or if such person has previously served three terms as a council member and four years as mayor.” This means a council member who served for three terms, but less than four years as Mayor, could make another run (possibly two), but only for Mayor.

If 2E passes, the first Mayoral election would happen in 2023, though there is some uncertainty as to whether Boulder County’s election system would be able to conduct a RCV election without new expense, or whether a new election vendor might be needed to handle a RCV contest. Boulder County Clerk Molly Fitzpatrick drafted a letter expressing concerns about using RCV earlier this year.

On the Web:

Proponent website: https://www.ourmayor-ourchoice.org/
Nonpartisan info: https://bouldercolorado.gov/elections/2020-ballot-measure-direct-election-of-the-mayor

Richard’s Take: Vote NO. I see a fair number of potential disadvantages or overstated advantages of 2E, in context as well as detail. I personally don’t care if the Mayor’s popularly elected or not, and furthermore I cannot recall any single moment in nearly 30 years of living here when the identity of the Mayor made any difference in my life. The Council members that could become Mayor already face the voters in their Council elections, and the Mayors who have served this century have all earned tens of thousands of popular votes. To me, today’s system works fine, and in my opinion we’ve always had high-quality public servants representing the City as Mayor, at least this century. Unless someone wins a race unanimously, we will always have people displeased with public officials who they didn’t vote for, and that doesn’t make an official illegitimate – and this will not change with 2E. Here are more than a few reasons why I don’t support this individual initiative:

  • It doesn’t change the power of the Mayor: In essence, the Mayor doesn’t run the city – the Mayor runs the City Council. Today, the Mayor’s vote on ordinances counts exactly the same as the other eight Council members, and 2E wouldn’t change that. Also, no other formal responsibility of the Mayor would change. and it’s not an executive position today. Instead, 2E would create a completely separate election for one seat out of nine, and I regard the actions of the entire Council on ordinances or policy as more important than the actions or opinions of the Mayor.
  • The current system actually has advantages: Under 2E, it would be completely possible (not saying “probable”) to elect a Mayor with little or no experience in City government. There are no qualifications listed for the job beyond age, residency, and term limits. But under the current system, the Council can factor experience and perceived ability to do the job as they select a Mayor who will work directly with them. The current system in Boulder is not that different from what happens at the State Capitol, where party caucuses elect a Speaker of the House and President of the Senate to positions that have a lot more power than a Mayor of Boulder. It works fine, and there’s no guarantee that moving the Speaker or Senate President choices to popular elections would lead to better legislative results or more legitimacy to who holds the positions.
  • The new Mayor could be in a political minority: Debateably, Boulder has evolved (or devolved) into a heavily partisan political duopoly. Under 2E, it would actually be possible for the new Mayor to be part of the political minority on Council. You can simply look at our most recent Council elections for possible illustrations. Bob Yates was the top vote-getter in 2015 and 2019, and while it’s not certain he would have chosen to run for Mayor if something like 2E had been in place, if he ran and won he would have served in both cases as part of a voting minority. This means a minority Mayor might not have sufficient voting power to move policy, and would often be on the short end of Council votes. Meanwhile, Mary Young was the top vote-getter in 2013 and 2017, and if she would theoretically choose to run for Mayor and win in 2023, it’s also completely possible she might wind up on the short end of policy votes. In essence, the already-weak Mayor might be one big step weaker if they don’t have the votes on Council.
  • 2E alters the 2016 term limit measure: Voters passed a measure in 2016 limiting Council members to three terms, but the 2E text includes a phrase saying candidates can’t run for Mayor if they have “previously served three terms as a council member AND four years as mayor.” I emphasized “AND” because it says a person who served three terms on Council but not as Mayor could run for a term (possibly even two) as Mayor. This seems to be in contrast to the intent of a term limit measure voters passed just four years ago, and this part of 2E has not been well-publicized.
  • No guarantee of better governance: Elections can be short-term popularity contests, and the results aren’t always great in the long run. I grew up in a state that elected Jesse “The Body” Ventura as its Governor. Sonny of “Sonny and Cher” was elected to Congress. The United States elected the reality TV host of “The Apprentice” as President of the United States. Here’s a link to a long list of fairly recent Mayoral scandals across the nation. Winning an election might be the result of any of a number of factors that don’t necessarily translate into the likelihood of doing a good job – looks, name recognition, social media following, advertising budget – when doing a good job is actually what matters for the City.
  • Money might matter: Boulder candidate elections are not expensive like Congressional races, but that doesn’t mean money couldn’t be a factor in a Mayor’s race. Take what actually happened in 2019 for example. Official candidate committees have voluntary spending limits, but in 2019 many campaigns benefitted from Unofficial Candidate Committees (UCCs) and Independent Expenditure Committees (IEC). The duopoly side that dominated had four UCCs supporting almost exactly the same candidates. This means individuals could literally make maximum contributions to individual candidates plus each of the supporting UCCs, and UCCs do not have limits on aggregate contributions or spending. Meanwhile, IECs have no limit on spending at all, and the only disclosure required is the name and treasurer of the organization – not which people the money came from. The largest IEC in 2019 spent more than the “other side’s” UCCs combined, and this IEC supported virtually the same list of candidates as the four UCCs on “its side.” It’s a long way of saying that this type of financial aggregation could be a tremendous advantage in a single-office race, and I’m also saying maybe Boulder ought to examine if the city’s laws around UCCs should be reconsidered. Our most recent City Council elections have been “slate vs. slate” polarized competitions barely different from races between Republicans and Democrats, and it’s not hard to imagine that something similar to the 2019 Council election could happen in a Boulder Mayor’s race.
  • Election Clutter: There’s no telling if we will ever go back to live campaign forums, but 2E would create two separate political races, between Council candidates and Mayoral candidates. It seems there would need to be separate forums to do this justice, whether they’re on the same date but at different times, or on different dates. It seems like more work for civic groups that would host forums, and potentially more likelihood that busy citizens would need to miss some of the forums.

Ranked Choice – Not a Magic Panacea:  Ranked choice voting is gaining popularity, but I believe people ought to give it a little extra critical thought as opposed to believing it will solve all problems within democracy. I want to stick with its relevance under 2E for this discussion.

  • Ranked Choice, part 1 – Systems will get gamed: Rationally, a voter will know who they favor and give this candidate their “first” vote in a RCV election, like they rationally do in elections today. And if Boulder continues to have a political duopoly, many voters rationally will give “second” choices or beyond to candidates most friendly to their side of the duopoly. Why would politically aware voters risk putting a political polar opposite in the Mayor’s chair? A system of tabulating votes won’t change underlying political factors, and it’s obvious that each side would try to figure out the best way to game the new system and tell supporters exactly how to vote or not vote from first choice down the line.
  • Ranked Choice, part 2 – Not stronger than political dirt: Ranked choice advocates put forward some pretty unproven general claims about its advantages – especially that RCV would minimize money in campaigning and reduce negative campaigning. Going back to my “Money Might Matter” comments – Boulderites rooted in local political reality ought to understand we’re dealing with two prideful political forces in Boulder who know money pays for visibility. And I’ve spent too much time on Boulder political social media to believe ranked choice will change Boulder discourse into Kumbaya singalongs. It’s a petri dish for spreading talking points and claims of questionable accuracy, plus it’s often really mean-spirited. “Official” campaign literature in Boulder candidate races tends to be pretty nicey-nice anyway, but campaigning is moving toward heavier reliance on unfiltered social media, which is where the dirt’s now really hitting the fan. Let’s try not to be Pollyanna here – politics will remain a contact sport and spending is typically a part of contact sports.
  • Ranked Choice, part 3 – Mandates not guaranteed: Candidates who have a clear, sizable advantage in “first” votes under RCV are likely to win, just like they do in traditional elections. If first-vote results are closer, it then becomes more possible that the ultimate winner might win on the strength of second or third-place votes, and I don’t believe I’d see this type of result as any sort of mandate from the people. I also suspect much voting for second/third or lower choices will either be due to suggestions from one side of the duopoly or poorly informed guesswork.
  • Ranked Choice, part 4 – Runoff by formula: Runoffs under RCV basically function as a mindless algorithm based on one-time voting choices or guesses. Voters don’t get a second chance to re-think, even though the choices and implications of the entire election may change when the RCV formula eliminates key candidates. For contrast, under a live runoff like the recent Mayor’s race in Denver, voters at least got an opportunity to reconsider if they really supported Mayor Hancock, and new information or new perspective could lead to new voter choices – not so with RCV.
  • Ranked Choice, part 5 – No shortage of democracy now: Proponents are touting 2E for its perceived enhancement to democracy, but the last City Council election generated 168,930 individual votes between about 15 candidates, and 2E does not add Council members. Will 2E or RCV increase turnout? Maybe, maybe not, but it’s not guaranteed and I’d rather see voters voting because it’s the right thing to do anyway. Plus, it’s actually possible that if a large number of candidates run for Mayor, the true first-place votes of the eventual winner under RCV could be substantially less than the total votes of any winning Council member. RCV eventually creates a majority, but if there are many folks on the ballot it’s a manufactured majority obtained only through the process of eliminating candidates.
  • Ranked Choice, part 6 – Technical difficulties: This is my last comment on RCV for a reason. The Boulder County Clerk has said the county’s existing voting system can’t accommodate ranked choice, and would require spending to make it work – and it’s possible the city might need to consider the services of another election vendor. I suspect this may be a technical issue that folks could work out by 2023 or reasonably soon, so I don’t think this is my deciding factor. But why pass a Charter change when it’s not guaranteed our existing election officials can implement a new system? Plus, it’s not a trivial matter to consider the format or handling of future municipal ballots, since they’re not just about City Council or a Mayor’s race – they’re for coordinated elections that could include statewide initiatives, Boulder County ballot issues, or City ballot issues.