Santa Cruz voters deserve a real mayoral contest, not political choreography

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.

In the current Santa Cruz mayoral contest, four candidates who appear broadly aligned politically seem to be pursuing a coordinated strategy: collectively prevent Ryan Coonerty from winning outright in the primary, then consolidate behind whichever of them advances to a November run-off.

Whether formally coordinated or not, the logic is increasingly obvious. The problem is that it is also politically shortsighted, strategically weak and deeply unconvincing to voters.

If these candidates truly believe one among them would make a stronger mayor than Coonerty, then why not make that argument honestly and directly from the outset? Why ask voters to engage in a kind of political shell game in which the real campaign begins only after the electorate has been used to engineer a run-off?

This approach reflects a misunderstanding of both leadership and voter psychology, which is not surprising given that three of the four have never held elected office — and the one who has, Chris Krohn, was recalled from the Santa Cruz City Council just a few years ago.

Strong campaigns do not emerge from such fragmentation. They emerge from clarity, confidence and coherence. Instead of rallying around a single compelling alternative capable of presenting a serious challenge, this strategy disperses energy, dilutes messaging, confuses voters and creates the appearance of tactical maneuvering rather than principled leadership.

More importantly, it signals uncertainty. If none of the four candidates is willing to step forward and say, “I’m clearly the strongest person to lead this city,” why should voters believe it?

The irony is that the strategy is likely to strengthen Coonerty rather than weaken him. 

Voters tend to recognize when a candidacy is driven by affirmative vision versus opposition arithmetic. A fragmented field opposing a strong front-runner often reinforces the perception that the front-runner is, in fact, the only candidate with broad enough support to govern effectively. Plus, Coonerty has a long track record of doing just that.

There is also a larger issue here about transparency.

Democracy depends not only on rules and procedures, but also on good-faith engagement with voters. If candidates are effectively treating the primary as a collective blocking maneuver while postponing the “real” contest until November, voters deserve candor about that strategy. Otherwise, it is less about democratic competition and more like backstage political choreography.

Santa Cruz faces serious challenges: housing affordability, homelessness, infrastructure strain, economic instability, public safety concerns, environmental resilience and the ongoing tension between growth and preserving the city’s character. These issues deserve substantive debate, not tactical gamesmanship.

A stronger and more honorable path would have been for this coalition to identify its strongest candidate early, unite behind that person and present voters with a direct and transparent choice. That would demonstrate confidence, discipline and genuine leadership.

Instead, voters are being asked to navigate an improvised political obstacle course whose central purpose appears to be denying one candidate an outright victory rather than articulating a compelling shared vision for the city.

That might be clever politics in theory. In practice, it risks appearing evasive, cynical and weak.

Santa Cruz deserves better than misinformed strategy masquerading as sage politics.

Mark Stephens is a Santa Cruz County native, a community activist, author and yoga teacher with a large local and international following.