While state and national elections occur every two and four years, half of city council is up for election every year. In practice this means voter turnout in odd-numbered years, with only local races on the ballot, is much smaller than in even years.

How much smaller? In the August primary, odd-year turnout is down by a third–and the number of people voting in November drops more than two-thirds.

“Everyone agrees more voters mean better outcomes,” says Ward Two councilmember Kirk Westphal. Last year, Westphal proposed switching to nonpartisan November elections in even-numbered years. Councilmembers from each ward would serve staggered four-year terms.

“The goal was to get contested elections before more voters,” he says. “Holding elections on dates when we know full well people are much less likely to show up wasn’t right to me. When turnout is in single digits and elections are determined by 4 percent of the registered voters, that’s patently bad.”

But such a change would require a citywide vote to amend the city charter–and last year, council declined to put Westphal’s plan on the ballot.

“Part of the concern was that it was proposed in an odd year [when turnout would be low],” Westphal says. “There was some enthusiasm to bring it back in an even year, and, since I didn’t have a campaign to run, I was afforded the time to refine it.”

Westphal and councilmember Chuck Warpehoski brought a revised plan back this summer. They kept the staggered four-year terms but dropped the nonpartisan angle–and council passed it seven to four. It’s on the November 8 ballot as Proposal 1.

Mayor Christopher Taylor says he voted against the plan last year because he sees “a great deal of information included in the partisan label.” With that gone, he supports this year’s version.

“Four-year terms would enable us to talk more about policy and less about politics,” the mayor says. “Council will be able to be more thoughtful about more complicated issues like affordability and affordable housing and how the city will deal with growth over the long term.”

He also likes the idea of staggered terms because “some stability on council is useful. Having all councilmembers up for election at once would inject a high level of uncertainty in city hall’s direction.”

If voters approve Proposal 1, the mayor explains, he and the councilmembers up for reelection this year would serve two-year terms, just as they have in the past. “Councilmembers up for election in 2017 would be elected for three-year terms.” He and the “councilmembers up for election in 2018 would be elected for four-year terms. There would be no election in 2019.” Starting in 2020, the mayor and half of council would run for four-year terms, with the other half facing the voters in 2022.

But some councilmembers see no need to change the way they’re elected.

“I like the fact that councilmembers have to go out every two years,” says Ward Four’s Jack Eaton. “At least every two years I go out and find out what’s on voters’ minds. I learn about what voters want.” If he only went door to door every four years, “I wouldn’t have to work as hard and not be as in touch with voters.”

The other Ward Four rep, Graydon Krapohl, sees upsides to four-year terms. “From a governance viewpoint it would be better because you can learn the job, and it would take the political aspect out of the job that we have with constant elections.”

But Krapohl sees a deeper downside. “Elections are at the core of what democracy is, and I don’t think politicians should be driving the change [in how they’re done]. It should be a broader public discourse, not run by council.

“I’d like to see it looked at in a larger context: why aren’t people voting? And I’d like to look at different solutions. Do we go to smaller wards or to an at-large system–or how about back to the springtime?” when local elections were held until voters approved a Democrat-led initiative in 1992.

“I’m in favor of larger-scale election reform,” Krapohl continues, “but there needs to be a more deliberate process. If we’re serious about this, we can’t do it on the cheap. We need to put money behind it. It’s too important an issue to do half-ass.”

“I hear the argument that more frequent accountability is better,” says Westphal, “but it’s accountability to such a narrow slice of the electorate. If you’re only relying on door-knocking every two years as your way of getting feedback from voters, you might have trouble getting re-elected.”

“I talk to residents every single day,” says Taylor. “We all go to the grocery store, to kids’ baseball games, to school events. We walk down the street and have coffee in cafes. People in Ann Arbor are not shy about communicating with their elected representatives, nor should they be.”

“Would I like to see a full-on public outreach effort and charter commission to take on these broader issues?” Westphal writes in an email. “Sure. But election reform isn’t top-of-mind for most folks. I just don’t see an outpouring of support for a long process. We’ve struggled to get people to come to neighborhood sessions to learn about the city budget.”

As of mid-September, there was no organized support for–or opposition to–Proposal 1.

“Not yet,” says Krapohl. “I’m sure there’ll be some group that will be against it. That’s good. We need a discussion not driven by councilmembers. If that takes longer than one election cycle, so be it.”

What’s the plan to get it passed? “Councilmembers in favor will make the case with their constituents,” says Westphal.

“The amendment will be good for the governance of the city, and I will say so when asked,” says Taylor.

Will it pass? “Folks I speak with tend to think it’s a good idea,” says the mayor. “Two-year terms are a short cycle to get things done, and we’re looking for people to get things done.”

“I believe it will fail,” says Eaton, “but at what level depends on the turnout.”

“It will pass,” says Westphal, “but it’s going to depend on how many people know why it’s being proposed, and how bad the status quo is.”