Letters to the Editor: L.A. needs more politicians? How a bigger City Council makes government smaller?
The L.A. Times recently ran an interesting article covering the election of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The paper cited “a record voter turnout”—a very accurate and often overlooked statistic—for his election.
What is missing, however, is an explanation as to why the Mayor will be more responsive and responsive to the needs of L.A. He will make policy decisions that may be in the best interest of his city, but they won’t necessarily be in the best interest of his voters.
When we look at the political history of these parts of the United States, we find that there is very little that is guaranteed to be in the best interest of the voters.
Some may agree that the more “electable” a candidate, the better. However, in my opinion, we don’t need an electorate that can be swayed to vote for the candidate that is most likely to win the presidency in this election cycle.
We do need our politicians to be more responsive, and a mayor’s office is the perfect forum to achieve this goal.
Not enough attention is paid to the Mayor’s office’s ability to create an atmosphere that will make him more responsive to the needs of his voters.
Mayor Villaraigosa will have to get his hands dirty to get more involved in issues in the city. He will have to be able to make decisions that will make a difference.
With a lot of support from powerful people in his city, Mayor Villaraigosa should be a leader that is more responsive to the voters.
— John Green, Los Angeles
The L.A. Times article, “A record voter turnout,” ran May 2. It covered the May 3 election and Villaraigosa’s victory. (I’m pretty sure there was no record voter turnout in 2004 or 1990.)
While I agree that the Times article is more than accurate, it doesn’t fully explain why Vill