Cincinnati Mayoral Primary Results (Hamilton, Warren: salary, tax, living in)

[hensleya1]

Elections - Local 12 WKRC

CINCINNATI MAYORAL PRIMARY - Totals (100.0% Reporting)

Candidate Votes % Votes
John Cranley 6,388 55.9
Roxanne Qualls 4,249 37.2
Jim Berns 557 4.9
Queen Noble 242 2.1

A few thoughts on this:

1) It doesn't surprise me that, limited to the city proper, the top two vote-getters were both from the same party who voted together 98% of the time while they were both on City Council. However what did surprise me was the margin by which John Cranley won. A few months ago, nobody here or anywhere thought he really had any chance of winning - any polling had shown Qualls up by double digits.

1a) It disappoints me that the other major political party didn't participate at all, although that may be indicative of the politics inside the city limits.

2) The only other two times Cincinnati had a primary (the first time on 9/11/01), the winner in both cases went on to lose the runoff.

3) I would be curious to see the precinct-by-precinct results when they're released.

[TomJones123]

Cranley won the primary with only 6% voter turnout. Cranley is smart to claim victory and endeavor to gather momentum going forward. However, this primary is certainly not predictive of the election, even though there are those who would like to say that it is. From WCPO's website:

In fact, Courtis Fuller won the 2001 primary against Charlie Luken, but Luken won the general election. And in 2005, David Pepper won the primary, but Mark Mallory won the general election.

[natininja]

Since the primary had a pre-determined outcome, it makes sense that the "protest voters" would show up in greater numbers than the establishment voters. I, too, am surprised by the margin, but even the protest voters weren't able to boost turnout over five-point-something percent, which is an indicator that they aren't that great in number.

Hard to draw conclusions, really. It may affect fundraising, though. But less than if Qualls were at all an unknown.

[kjbrill]

6% is a dismal turnout, even for a primary. One contingent did manage to get more of their people out than the other but that is not saying much. Overall it appears a large number of people just didn't care.

[TomJones123]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

6% is a dismal turnout, even for a primary. One contingent did manage to get more of their people out than the other but that is not saying much. Overall it appears a large number of people just didn't care.

I am probably more of the opinion that the mayoral primary be nixed. It cost around $400,000 (give or take) and, obviously, participation is at an all time low. Public awareness may also be a factor. It makes me wonder how many people just didn't know, or know the purpose if they did know. Personally, I didn't care and didn't vote. I will be voting for Qualls in November.

[kjbrill]

Originally Posted by TomJones123

I am probably more of the opinion that the mayoral primary be nixed. It cost around $400,000 (give or take) and, obviously, participation is at an all time low. Public awareness may also be a factor. It makes me wonder how many people just didn't know, or know the purpose if they did know. Personally, I didn't care and didn't vote. I will be voting for Qualls in November.

I understand your position. So what was the purpose? The purpose of most primaries is to narrow the field. If that was the purpose here it is strictly a big waste of public money. The parties do not pay for the primaries, the board of elections does.

My wife worked for the board of elections for many years. When we moved here she was contacted about a job on election day. They were looking for a Democrat Judge, as there were damn few Democrats in Warren County (still are). It sounded good to her, close by our house, and she got a day out with other people. They obviously had not checked very much as at that time both she and I were registered Republicans at the state level. So they hired her on. She said I will become a registered Democrat to keep my job, but they have no control over how I actually vote.

But to get back, that Cincinnati primary was a joke and expensive to the citizens. So who was behind it and why? Obviously not to save the citizens (though elections are actually run by the county so I expect all of Hamilton County paid for this one) money.

[natininja]

Berns said he was going to bow out, then retracted his withdrawal the next day. Had he not retracted, Queen Noble would have kept the thing going. Haha.

I guess the idea is to give third parties some recognition? You can vote for a third party (in the primary) without the feeling of wasting your only vote (in the general). So it theoretically lets people have an ideological vote which may later affect the choices in the pragmatic vote. Imagine a scenario where a Green Party candidate is actually more representative of the will of the people, but many people vote for the Democrat instead because they're afraid the Republican might win. The primary gives them a chance to vote Green, which may result in a Green vs. Republican general, instead of the Green vs. Democrat vs. Republican general which could result in a less popular candidate (the D or R) getting elected.

[restorationconsultant]

Cincinnati politics are a joke for anyone who came here from a major city. Primaries should be used to narrow a field of candidates from the same party to proceed to general election.

City council should be representational council defined by DISTICT! I know this is hard for locals to swallow but the reason Cincinnati is so dysfunctional is that the " at large' syetem holds no one accountable for their votes.

Id like to see some things happen:

1,) a referendum to re-establish disticts for council. That way council people live in the area they represent and have a constituency

2.) Primaries are used to establish party candidates for main elections.

3.) Salaries reflect the job. City Council, at best, is a "part time" position. Salary should be 30K, ( not 74K), NO STAFF, but instead a shared administrative pool. This would save MILLIONS in costs to tax payers.

City salaries in Cincinnati are HUGE compared to cities with million plus populations. There is no reason why the mayor of Cincinnati (Pop 295K) ,makes the same salary as Indianapolis ( pop 995K).

If council was beholding to districts where they lived, this city would function better.

Do not be surprised is this doesnt come up for referendum soon. It makes sense

[goyguy]

"Queen Noble?" I'm picturing a person standing well over six feet tall, with an Adam's Apple and husky voice, wearing a sequined and well-stuffed dress as well as high high heels and an outrageous wig while braying "I Will Survive" + Donna Summer/Lady Gaga/Diana Ross/Barbra Streisand/Madonna/etc songs between rounds of raunchy jokes in a seedy bar.

Primaries always bring out the voters "making a statement" in droves while the vast majority pays no mind. They definitely serve a dubious purpose unless at least three candidates with a serious fighting chance in the final election are competing. Which is why many eyes are turned to NYC while in Cincinnati nearly 95% of registered voters couldn't be bothered.

I love living in the last American city to retain Proportional Representation voting. Cincinnati once used this system. You not only decide who you want to represent you, you can rank your preferences! Every candidate who receives "#1" votes above a set percentage of all votes cast is automatically deemed elected. You need an advanced degree in math to figure out the "PR" formula, though. Ballots in Cambridge were hand-counted until after the turn of the century (between the 20th and 21st!) Even with electronic help it can take several days to deliver the final results. So-and-so's "#3" vote tally winds up being added to thus-and-such's "#5" total...it's hopelessly complicated. But everybody who likes a candidate so much that they'll only vote for that person can boost that person's chances of getting (back) into office. A "#1" vote counts for that much more when it's the only one. Thus, "proportional representation." Theory has it that the cumbersome and protracted exercise of counting such votes, coupled with PR's track record of helping women and "minorities" become elected officials, is what led to its falling out of favor in most places.

[natininja]

^^ You're right about one thing. That's city council being part-time.

Indy functions like a much smaller city than its population numbers show, which btw you overestimate by about 160k. If Hamilton County were merged with Cincinnati, Mallory's job would not suddenly become way harder to do. There'd be a bit more population in need of city services, but also more money to deal with it, and Cincy would still have a far stronger Chamber of Commerce / set of Fortune 500s to deal with than a lightweight like Indy.

As for wards, they would stoke tensions between various groups in the city (e.g. racial tension). The last thing we need is more factions. I currently live somewhere with a council broken up like that, and it's much more dysfunctional. No one is fighting for the greater good of the city, because they all have their selfish agendas to push. There are some benefits, like it being easier to have a personal relationship with your representative, but like you say Cincinnati only has 300k population; there are diminishing returns when you break that into geographic political factions.

It seems like you've become a full-fledged member of the Westside vs. Everyone Else club, which you initially said was nonsensical when you first arrived. Pretty ironic.