Coral Gables Watch

25% VOTING IS NOT DEMOCRACY

Coral Gables elites have come to embrace the April elections, a puzzling choice considering the meager voting, which hovers around a dismal 25% of potential voters in the city. The recent election saw a mere 30% participation, which one candidate, despite losing by a significant margin to a well-financed opponent, hailed as a stunning democratic triumph.

The willingness to accept a low April turnout, often around 25%, is because candidates believe this provides a considerable advantage over a November election where participation could reach 50% or 60%, potentially doubling or even tripling the number of voters they need to reach. This perceived advantage in low April turnouts arises because candidates often believe their core base of highly motivated supporters are more likely to vote in these elections. This reduces the need for expensive outreach to a broader electorate, a significant challenge for underfunded campaigns who believe they have a better chance of beating well-funded opponents in the April event.

The belief that underfunded candidates can overcome those with significant financial advantages clashes with historical evidence, which underscores the enduring influence of big money in elections. The governance of Coral Gables, particularly following the April election model, has largely been in the hands of an elite of well-financed development interests and their allied contractors, lawyers, bankers, architects, and engineers, raising questions about the nature of its democracy.

Continuing with the April voting date undermines any claim of Coral Gables being a truly participatory democracy. To demonstrate a genuine commitment to democratic principles, the City must ensure all candidates compete on a level playing field, rather than one that demonstrably favors a small, elite group of conservative, large-scale development interests who have exerted disproportionate influence for far too long. Coral Gables risks mirroring the undesirable traits of Miami – its chaotic disorder, suffocating traffic, excessive density, and unwelcoming atmosphere. Our city stands to lose its cherished local character, intimate feel, friendly ambiance, and hopeful spirit.