Mick Cornett wins

[Patrick]

I'm not really surprised.


"Tulsa, Oklahoma City hold primaries for mayoral seats

TULSA (AP) - A highly charged race for mayor in Tulsa and a far quieter contest in Oklahoma City both went before voters Tuesday, with the incumbent mayors of the state's two largest cities appearing on primary election ballots.

Three Republicans challenged Tulsa Mayor Bill LaFortune for the party's nomination. The Democratic contest featured an advertising showdown between former state Rep. Don McCorkell and Kathy Taylor, who resigned her job as the state's secretary of commerce and tourism to run for mayor.
Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett easily beat two lesser-known Republican challengers, Joe "Sarge" Nelson and Bob Waldrop. With all 271 precincts reporting, Cornett had 12,383, compared with 1,157 for Waldrop and 596 for Nelson, Oklahoma County Election Board Secretary Doug Sanderson said. Any candidate who gets more than 50 percent of the vote is elected mayor.
The popularity of Cornett, a former television anchor, was buoyed when he helped bring the NBA's New Orleans Hornets to Oklahoma City after the team's facilities were damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
Overall, 10 candidates in Tulsa sought their party's nomination. Voters had faced a barrage of yard signs, billboards, radio and television ads and plenty of mudslinging ahead of the primary, when spending by five candidates exceeded $1.5 million.
Growth in the violent crime rate was a key issue in the race, with most candidates pointing to the need for more police officers and crime prevention programs. They also spoke of building unity following political turmoil that brought a rift on the city council and an unsuccessful attempt to recall two councilmen last year.
Chris Medlock, one of those councilman, joined County Commissioner Randi Miller and real estate agent Brigitte Harper in challenging LaFortune in the GOP race.
LaFortune had touted his leadership in Tulsa's improving economy. During his tenure, voters approved the $885 million Vision 2025 economic development referendum, which included $22 million in incentives for the American Airlines maintenance base in Tulsa.
In the Democratic race, Taylor accused McCorkell of running a smear campaign.
The businessman had called for Taylor to drop out or explain why election records show she voted twice in the 2000 presidential primary. Taylor said she voted only by absentee ballot in Florida and that records showing a vote in Tulsa must be in error.
The double-vote claims followed reports that she and her husband, businessman Bill Lobeck, owed back taxes in Florida.
The other Democratic contenders were James Alexander Jr., Accountability Burns, Prophet-Kelly Clark and James Oliver Desmond Jr.
The Tulsa mayoral race will be decided in an April 4 general election between the winners of the Democratic and Republican primaries and independents Paul Tay and Benford Faulk.
A general election is scheduled the same day in Oklahoma City if no candidate wins more than 50 percent of the vote Tuesday. "

[venture]

Only 14,000 people? What kind of crap is that. Granted I would expect this with lame idea of holding these elections in March. There is nothing wrong with have a primary be for selecting party candidates and then the general election in November...but I guess not in Oklahoma.

I've never understood why these type of elections are held in the "off season", versus other parts of the country. It would be interesting to see just how much this pathetic election cost the City to hold.

[Oki_Man5]

They hold the elections like that because they do not want the average Joe to vote; it is the same in school board elections and lots of bond/tax elections.

If they can hold the number of voters down to around 10% of the registered voters (and do not forget that a large percentage of those who would be eligible to vote have already given up on elections as an exercise in futulity); then, it takes only a hair over 5% of the registered voters to carry an issue.

And we are all a part of the problem!

[mranderson]

They hold the elections like that because they do not want the average Joe to vote; it is the same in school board elections and lots of bond/tax elections.

If they can hold the number of voters down to around 10% of the registered voters (and do not forget that a large percentage of those who would be eligible to vote have already given up on elections as an exercise in futulity); then, it takes only a hair over 5% of the registered voters to carry an issue.

And we are all a part of the problem!

Your comment makes no sense. All the "average Joe" has to do is go to the polling location and vote. The municipal elections are held the way they are to gain more attention because the November elections gain all of it. The only way to change the time frame is by changing the city charter, which requires a vote of the people.

[BDP]

Your comment makes no sense.

Maybe, but it does explain it. More people do vote on city and state issues that are included with a general November election than they do on special elections. The motivation for holding these elections off season may be to "gain more attention", but it certainly does not have that effect. Voter apathy is a problem in all elections and having more of them does not help. It would be nice if doing it this created more interest as you suggest it is meant to do, but it obviously doesn't do that.

[Oki_Man5]

If they had thelections spoken of with the general election, the in crowd would have a lot more difficult time remaining the in crowd, and tax/bond elections would have a much more difficult time passing.

One must remember that Mr. Anderson is an in-crowd wannabe.

[metro]

This isn't just a problem in Oklahoma. It's a nationwide problem. Historically voter turnout for municipal elections has always been low. Main reason being most people don't care enough to make the effort to get out and vote. Look at the presidential elections (the highest of interest). They usually only pull 40-60% of registered voters to the polls. It's a mentality shift more than anything that needs to happen.

[jbrown84]

Why would only the "in-crowd" vote in municipal elections. Everyone hears and sees the same amount of campaigning and publicity and if people feel out of the "in-crowd" or that they disagree with the incumbent or whatever it may be, all they have to do is go vote. It's not like the election was a secret or something.

[BDP]

all they have to do is go vote

Right, but they don't. The in-crowd knows this and plays it to their advantage. That's all anyone is saying. Voter apathy is a huge problem across the board. Special elections are designed to take advantage of it, while posturing as a solution to it.

For example, if it took 50% of all registered voters for something to pass, you would see the "special elections" disappear. They would force it on the general election, because everyone knows that more people vote in those.

The truth is that almost everything wins by a plurality of total registered voters, even if it wins an overwhelming majority of the actual votes. You don't need anywhere near a majority of the people to win anything, you just need a majority of the votes cast by people who paid attention and cared and had the time and the means and lived in an area with a well staffed polling station, etc. The pols do pay close attention to voter tendencies and take advantage of it anyway they can. It is, after all, their livelihood.

[Oki_Man5]

Thank you, BDP for giving a fantastic answer.

[metro]

again it's not an "in crowd" thing. it's a simple historical fact nationwide that municipal races have low voter turnout. it is more of a "i don't care" thing than an "in crowd" thing.

[Oki_Man5]

But the in crowd goes and votes, so they win---everytime.

[BDP]

it's a simple historical fact nationwide that municipal races have low voter turnout

Exactly, that's why those with a vested interest (the in-crowd) love to keep such issues off of general elections that get more attention and more voters. The formula is to have a special election for which they know turn out is historically low and for which they can almost single handedly control how much it is publicized, because there will be no residual publicity from the other measures and races as there would be in a general election. That way, the total number of people connected to the special interests involved, the in-crowd, inherently form a known higher percentage of the votes according to the historical turnouts. They have less control over that when there is a higher voter turnout.

For example if you have 7,000 people openly supporting your cause, do you want it to be voted on in an election that historically draws 14k people or 1 million people. It's really just basic political science. They feign a sense of democratic idealism for the special elections, while manipulating the simple fact that you pointed out above. It can and does backfire, but that usually only happens in places that have aggressive media, but even then, their chances would be no better in a general election. As long as turn out is low for special elections, it is better for the “in-crowd” to place their issues in such elections.

[Oki_Man5]

Dang! You are good, BDP. And I mean that.