|
government candidates and contributors.
Again, if the value could be shown to us,
this could be justified. Again, no proof has
been suggested.
Thirdly, elections should be a special
event in the lives of the citizens, not a
continuous process.
Fourthly, high turnouts increase the
pressure on candidates to devote more
energy to issues rather than gimmicks
and gross publicity.
Fifth, less frequent elections permit
greater degree of average citizen partici-
pation.
Sixth, governmental issues and political
office holders at one level can never, no
matter what we do here, be insulated from
the issues and office holders of other levels.
Intergovernmental realities speak too clear-
ly to the contrary.
Seventh, elections in three of every four
years force office holders at all levels of
governments to devote still more time to
politics than to their job responsibilities
and also encourage one to use one office
level as a platform or launching pad to
another the following year.
Finally, if there were elections in two
of every four years, the administrators of
elections would have a much easier task
in formulating policies, record-keeping and
analysis of election results.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to call upon
and yield three minutes to Delegate
Beatrice Miller.
THE CHAIRMAN: I will recognize her
at a later time.
Delegate Schloeder.
DELEGATE SCHLOEDER: Mr. Chair-
man, ladies and gentlemen: It is very in-
teresting that in this amendment that we
have before us we seem to have a very
basic contradiction. All the arguments that
were given by Delegate Byrnes in support
of his position somehow overlook the fact
that there is this contradiction.
He says Baltimore City should have three
elections in every four years, but the rest
of the subdivisions would have two elec-
tions in every four years.
I am not too clear how this contradiction
can be resolved. If all these arguments
that he gives are valid arguments, it would
seem to me that these arguments would be
as valid for Baltimore City as they would
; be for the counties.
|
He seems for the first time in this Con-
vention to be asking for an exception for
Baltimore City. But more to the logic and
reasoning of the argument, I just find it
very difficult to believe that for some
strange reason the political climate of Bal-
timore City is immune to those seven fine
reason against having three elections in
four years.
Before we begin, I would like to point to
that basic contradiction, so that you can be
very clear in your own mind as to what
this amendment would do. I would yield at
a later time to those who have indicated
interest to speak.
THE CHAIRMAN. Delegate Beatrice
Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Mr. Chair-
man, and fellow delegates: I rise in support
of the amendment and the Minority Report.
Those of you who have watched me on
the floor know I am usually not reluctant
to change. I am not particularly an advo-
cate of the status quo, but I see no reason
to change merely for change's sake.
I have heard and I have listened. I have
spoken to a great many delegates. I find
none who will tell us how it will be better
by changing what we have and, therefore,
I cannot see any real reason to change it.
Those of us who have worked in the past
with voluntary organizations on elections
know how difficult it is to get the support
of those people and to ask them time after
time, year after year, to devote the kind
of hard work, sacrifice, and hours that
they do freely each year. We fear that if
we go into yearly elections, we will be
faced with a more mechanized kind of ma-
chine, a paid kind of operation because we
do not think we can get the kind of volun-
teer support we have been accustomed to
up to the present time.
This is my very strongest reason for
advocating that we stay with what we
have and the kinds of operation we are
having and to which our people are accus-
tomed to volunteering more time and effort,
but I do not think we could ask people to
do this on a yearly basis.
I would also submit that a yearly elec-
tion would remove an aura of stability that
we have in terms of government. We would
constantly be discussing who gets in and
who got out. We would constantly be at-
tempting to adjust the newly elected to
the positions in which they are elected. We
would constantly be having a strain on
government in accommodating new people.
|
