MikeF, a primary makes more sense now. It'll be better to have people voted in with more than 10% of the vote.

Cathy924, if MikeF is right, a primary looks like a good idea.

If there are more candidates than twice the number of available seats, the council has the option to hold a primary to winnow the field down to twice the number of seats. I think the last time it was a large enough field to consider was in 2003 when there were 9 candidates for 4 seats and the council declined to have a primary. Think about the candidate forums over the last few years, can you imagine 14 people answering each question? It would be insane! By the time the last person answered the question, you would forget what the first one said. And the forum would either last for hours or there would only be a few questions.
Since there are 3 seats and a primary would drop it to 6 candidates, I think there should be a primary if 8 or more actually get on the ballot. Not worth the expense to drop one candidate. With the presidential primary happening at the same time, this year might see one.

gazettefan, completely agree with you. While not living in Janesville so not familiar with the legalities of elections, I find it odd that the Council can make the decision on whether to hold a primary. I'd think the State would dictate the parameters on this issue. Does the number running give the local government option of holding a primary?

if all 14 candidates fulfill their signature quotas,all 3 top vote=getters may have less than 10%

What is the point of a primary? Let the top three voter getters take the vacant seats.