Here, in tiny Whitewater, there’s an upcoming Common Council election in which five of the seven seats are up for a vote (seats representing four districts and one citywide seat).
Unlike other communities, most of those seats won’t be contested. Only one of the districts will have a definite challenger; another may have one, or may be decided as write-in contest.
A majority of these seats, however, will have only one candidate on the ballot.
Last year, when it became clear that most of the seats would not have challengers, one of the incumbents was happy to announce that, weeks before the vote, the election was almost set. There was an unwitting candor in the observation.
Regrettably, there’s neither good policy nor prudence in hoping that an election goes uncontested. It’s a reflection of an ailing political culture (and legitimate disenchantment) that many talented people in the community prefer to stay away from political office. There are only so many grand pronouncements from Whitewater’s municipal administration that a sensible citizen can brook, and our city’s passed that limit. Ironically, Whitewater’s unelected officials have done the most harm to our political culture, and through their unpersuasive cheerleading have undermined the desirability of elected office.
Yet, even as a matter of skillful politics, races without challengers undermine an incumbent’s claim to legitimacy. It’s simply more commanding to be re-elected after a hard-fought race than to be chosen because no one else stepped forward. My point isn’t that I’d like to see all of these incumbents lose, but rather that those I’d like to see win would do better winning against an opponent. Of the five running, despite occasional policy differences I might have with that number, I think that three deserve re-election, and two do not.
Lack of challengers is — in more ways that one — an inauspicious sign.