Like many communities, Whitewater’s schools have a structural deficit. In the past, they’ve plugged that deficit via referendum, or through federal grant money (now in short supply).

I’ll not now comment on the merits of a referendum, but rather on the politics of one. The district has not yet set the final amount of a referendum request, and there may be changes to a possible list of cuts. There’s ample time to consider the merits of a proposal; for now, it’s the politics of a referendum that I’ll ponder.

Whitewater’s filled with smart people who are well-familiar with the points I’m making; the oddity is that many of those smart people won’t play a role in a referendum debate, thereby leaving the issue to less-capable town figures.

Spring is hard. I’ve written before that spring elections favor the right, not the left. See, Why Whitewater Isn’t a Progressive City; Why Whitewater’s ‘Conservatives’ Hold the City Tenuously. A spring election will tend right, and this would be true even without a GOP presidential primary on that date. (The GOP race will probably be over by April in any event.)

I’d guess that a referendum in the spring has only about a one-in-three chance of success, perhaps less, based on the likely composition of the electorate. Without a large citywide vote, there’s no chance to balance the opposition to a referendum sure to come from outlying towns in the district.

So is a referendum doomed? No, it’s not. The odds may be against a referendum, but it’s possible to change those odds.

It’s smart to lay out what’s at stake, but only if it’s done cleverly. I’ve argued that a referendum campaign should include an itemized list of what’s at risk without approval. (See, A Referendum for Whitewater’s Schools (Part 3).)

A list is good policy (because it begs the legitimate question about what’s at-risk list, and what’s not), and good politics (it shows that pro-referendum advocates will be specific in their requests).

The political danger, however, is clear: if one simply publishes a list of possible cuts, without further advocacy, residents may decide that they’ll go for all the cuts, without any referendum to mitigate some cuts.

If one favors a referendum, and lists possible cuts without elaboration, then I’m not sure what to say. Either one’s being disingenuous about one’s actual support for a referendum, or one’s politically naive.

There’s nothing wrong with publishing a list, but it’s foolish for a pro-referendum advocate to publish a list without carefully-placed talking points.

Misunderstanding the need for a solid public case. Pro-referendum advocates will want to make their case through a website like the Banner or a newspaper like the Daily Union.

There’s no likelihood that either publication will change anyone’s mind. They have (I’m sure) a similar and committed readership, but it’s a readership too small and too similar to make a difference in an election. Reaching the same small band who follow these issues anyway won’t make a difference.

Even then, as I note above, some people will read what those publications print and come away with an unfavorable view of a referendum.

Most won’t pay attention, though. Look around at an event at which thousands of people pour out (like the Fourth of July celebration), and you’ll see an overwhelming majority who care nothing for city or district politics, and wouldn’t recognize most of the officials in town, anyway. (That’s rational — most people have more important things to do.)

If one intends to win a referendum — or even come close — there needs to be a direct-to-the-voters effort that avoids the mixed messages, jumbled presentation, and weak advocacy that those local publications offer.

Question’s about Rep. Wynn’s role as a citizen financial advisor. I’ll assume that Rep. Wynn played a role on a panel of citizen financial advisors to the district. (If he didn’t, then he shouldn’t have been listed — more than once — as a member of the panel.)

If he played a role, does Wynn support a referendum? If he does, why has he taken a position in support of closing a structural deficit through additional public debt when the conservative governor he dutifully supports derides that very approach?

If Wynn opposes a referendum, what does it say about his skills as an advocate that he was unable to persuade his fellow citizen-advisors to oppose, similarly, that referendum?

I’m not persuaded that the panel’s composition — all men but one — was either practically or politically sound. Practically, it’s impossible to contend that financial expertise in Whitewater resides in men more than women by a ratio of 17-1. The only place that so lopsided a ratio might predictably occur would be, say, Saudi Arabia.

Politically, even with a calculation that a probable pro-referendum recommendation from the panel would need men as advocates (to win over other men who might be skeptical), a ratio like this is too extreme.

Personal advocacy. This referendum may be won, but it can only be so through personal advocacy. The same stodgy local publications will be useless to bring success to an uphill-effort. Advocates will have to take their case directly to others. They’ll have to organize diligently and zealously, and meet with potential voters in groups big and small. If a spring referendum like this is to be successful, it will be a coffee klatch and meeting-hall effort. Arms-length print and Web-based efforts of dubious quality won’t help.

That’s why more women on a financial panel would have been a good idea; the same men who sit on so many committees won’t be the best evangelists of this cause. A few energetic women are worth more than a dozen middle-aged men.

Playing to win, or playing to do well-enough? It’s possible, of course, that those pushing a referendum don’t expect or even care to win; they may be hoping for a good-enough result, and the chance to offer a referendum again later.

That’s foolish: the way to win, and even the way to get a good-enough result, is to play to win.