Commentary: Multiple choices in race would benefit the electorate

Sue Lester’s commentary, “A thinner field of candidates would benefit us all,” (Aug. 7), has left me concerned. I don’t need others to make my decisions.

As one who has been active in the city’s politics and critical of the current council majority’s actions, like Lester, I want to see change. But I don’t think any particular groups should define that change for me — or the rest of the city’s population. That is why we have elections.

Lester says, “I am begging all potential candidates who are not well versed in city issues, are running only to shed light on one issue of personal importance or are lacking endorsements and the support of their peers in the community to please do the right thing.”

This statement terrifies me. If we only run the known, we will never get change. If we do what we always did, we will get what we always had. I for one, want change.

Yes, there are statistical advantages to a narrower field, but for whom? To seems that groups that have political clout in this city are forgetting that they are endorsing, not nominating, candidates. Their sway is being used to mold a city in their political image.

And from what I have witnessed on both sides of the political spectrum, candidates who don’t fit are intimidated and harassed out of the race so that there is little resistance to the endorsers’ goals.

I have heard much conversation in the last few months about the wide field and each candidate’s electability. Early polling was conducted, and if I were to believe it all, everyone is winning and everyone is losing. The power brokers manipulate the data to handicap this election as if it were a horse race, and yet I’ve never seen a really rich track tout.

Let’s have an open field, and let the voters shape their city. The surprise could be that there is new future, not a familiar past.

I hear people say they don’t really like a certain crop of candidates, but they will hold their nose and vote anyway. Perhaps a potential candidate reflected their point of view, but that person was silenced by whisper campaigns, exaggerated or erroneous accusations, money and power.

I believe this thinking is why voter turnout continues to decline. If you know how the story ends, why participate?

Voter turnout is low, and as Lester points out, many vote without much study or consideration, but that does not give license to any group to manipulate the field for its desired outcome. Leave it up to the candidates and their campaigns and message. If an opponent has a ton of money with which to shout, get your own money or be creative.

Or maybe it’s time for campaign finance reform to come to local politics so that our cities can go back to choosing people who truly represent the people and their points of view.

A large slate of candidates seems significant of dissatisfaction with the status quo — not just with government but with the process of deciding it. Points of view are not being represented, and some very brave men and women are stepping up to be heard. Let them run and learn.

If, as Lester cites, an inactive candidate can get 2.7% of the votes, that should tell us something — people want a change.

Am I being naive? Perhaps, but I want a democratic process in Costa Mesa, and that starts with encouraging rather than discouraging people to run for office.

Failing to agree with Lester’s opinions is not self-serving. It’s democracy.

MARY ANN O’CONNELL lives in Costa Mesa and is a member of the city’s charter committee