Candidate apathy waters down democratic process

Frontiersman editorial board

If it was choice you're looking for in this season's city elections, don't hold your breath. Democracy will be in action, since you'll have an opportunity to cast your vote, but, in many cases, it won't make much of a difference.

Maybe it's because nobody is eager to jump into public office during a budget crunch, or maybe it's just that people are comfortable with the status quo. Whatever the reason, there was no stampede of candidates thundering to file for the October election. For the six seats available during this cycle, four will be filled by unchallenged incumbents. Two at-large Palmer city council seats will be the source of some competition as three candidates will vie for them -- the top two being seated.

The topic of voter apathy has long been a topic of discussion during election cycles, but we don't often debate the deeper meaning or ramifications of candidate apathy. In a community that appears to be fairly engaged, and fairly in tune with the issues and challenges facing all of us, you don't have to go far to hear people discussing those issues. There's also no shortage of differing opinions on the most intense subjects -- planning and zoning, taxation, education and the entire spectrum of growth-related issues.

That depth of opinion would suggest a sizable cross-section of residents who would show interest in public office. That's obviously not the case. And that's unfortunate for the electorate.

It's not so much that the incumbents are doing a bad job, or that a change is needed. The problems with a lack of candidates are often less critical, and more subtle that. One of the most important functions of multiple candidates in a race is that the differing opinions at least force a debate over important issues. When an incumbent runs unchallenged, there's no need to address the tough topics, and there's no need to offer specific solutions or alternatives. Even when a challenger's views don't enjoy wide popularity, they at least force the important issues to the surface for a healthy public debate.

Another benefit of that debate is that it forces fresh perspectives on long-standing challenges. When one voice is lent to a given topic for several years, without a challenging opinion, we all become focused on a limited scope of solutions or responses, and that can dilute one of the most important functions of a healthy democracy -- the function of adaptation as a result of healthy dialogue and compromise.

Of course, another serious danger that comes with so many unchallenged candidates is that the limited choices will keep voters from the polls. Turnout is already week for most elections, and many voters may stay home rather than cast what they perceive as a token ballot. We hope that's not the case, and we hope the next cycle will bring out some fresh voices.