Should we change the way we elect our mayor?

With only days to go, still no one in sight for the mayor’s job other than incumbent Peter Milobar.

I figured Chad Moats might go for it, but he announced yesterday he’ll run for one of the eight councillor seats instead.

I think what deters a lot of people from running for mayor is that you get only one shot at it. Either you top the polls, or you lose.

But with council, you get eight tries. You might have a couple of dozen opponents, but the odds are better. Even if you trail far beyond the top vote-getter, as long as you’re at least a vote ahead of the ninth best candidate, you get a seat on council.

There’s also a misconception that you need experience as a councillor before you can be a legitimate contender for mayor. Not so, thought that’s the usual career path.

I know there are a lot of people out there desperately seeking somebody to oppose Mayor Milobar, but they’re coming up blank. The mayor, by the way, told me yesterday I should be more concerned about the fact so few people are interested in running for school board.

While the board does important work, it remains that when nobody wants the City’s top job it does not speak well of community engagement. This begs the question of whether the mayor should be chosen from among those elected to council rather than directly by the voters. That might create more interest in City council elections in general, but it’s far better that the mayor be responsible directly to the voters and not beholden to councillors.

That issue, in turn, however, opens up the debate about whether a ward system is better than an at-large system. There are pros and cons to both, but I remain convinced that, for a city our size, at-large is better because it’s less prone to parochial grandstanding.