Election update
As of 9:00 a.m. Monday morning (or 34 hours before hitting triple zeros on CDIV's countdown clock), 300 additional ballots have come in since the last update (which, if the town is being transparent, would equal 1400). This is really no matter, as around 2000 ballots will be turned in prior to 7:00 p.m. tomorrow, or under 45% of the qualified electorate.
In 2010, 1,854 registered voters took part in the town board election. In 2006, this number was under 1000. So we are doing just fine, given that town board candidates are the only issue on the ballot.
The "so-so" participation reveals once again it's not the number of candidates running, but the quality of candidates and the perception of closeness that gets people to the polls. And the perception is this election is already in the bag for the incumbents and the Rotary's chosen Ken Zornes, but I'm hear to tell you, my internal data suggests chaos on election night, with five clear front-runners all unable to separate themselves from each other. Chaos in the first town-run election of this magnitude (the county is only providing verbal assistance, although some of the election judges have worked at the county level) is hardly a desired outcome. I've mentioned this before, but if certain candidates with money and an inflated sense of importance finish less than 10 votes out of the running, expect a recount, and a close examination of questionable calls.
Rather than be accused of influencing the election by revealing the final polling numbers (essentially exit polls) prior to tomorrow evening, I'm going to wait until just at 7:00 p.m., and release the numbers, and see how they compare to the actual results. Instead, I'm going to release later today the answer to the question: "If you could vote for only one candidate, who would you vote for?"
This is a measure of loyalty, and probably is a better gauge of who the voting public actually would like to see occupying a trustee seat. It would be wonderful if voting for three candidates was not allowed, but rather, number of times candidates are hit by a shoe (a strong measure of dislikability), ranked voting (or voting for one or at most two candidates, despite how many seats were open or how many candidates were running) was the norm. Because that third vote is often a throw-away vote, and elevates people into contention who really have no business serving on the board except as a "well, that was from out of left field" decision. It's not really the "will of the people" if everyone have two strong beliefs and one "wishy-washy" belief, but across the spectrum of voters, no majority shares the same strong beliefs, but all share the same "wishy-washy" belief. In Estes, a candidate often isn't qualified for the votes they receive, but rather (and the public strongly believes this, and falls in line) the votes they receive somehow qualify the candidate.
So look back over the last few elections, and ask yourself if one or more of the folks earning a seat on the town board was qualified, or simply less unqualified than their opponents. I'm not casting any stones, but Dorla Eisenlauer?
In 2010, 1,854 registered voters took part in the town board election. In 2006, this number was under 1000. So we are doing just fine, given that town board candidates are the only issue on the ballot.
The "so-so" participation reveals once again it's not the number of candidates running, but the quality of candidates and the perception of closeness that gets people to the polls. And the perception is this election is already in the bag for the incumbents and the Rotary's chosen Ken Zornes, but I'm hear to tell you, my internal data suggests chaos on election night, with five clear front-runners all unable to separate themselves from each other. Chaos in the first town-run election of this magnitude (the county is only providing verbal assistance, although some of the election judges have worked at the county level) is hardly a desired outcome. I've mentioned this before, but if certain candidates with money and an inflated sense of importance finish less than 10 votes out of the running, expect a recount, and a close examination of questionable calls.
Rather than be accused of influencing the election by revealing the final polling numbers (essentially exit polls) prior to tomorrow evening, I'm going to wait until just at 7:00 p.m., and release the numbers, and see how they compare to the actual results. Instead, I'm going to release later today the answer to the question: "If you could vote for only one candidate, who would you vote for?"
This is a measure of loyalty, and probably is a better gauge of who the voting public actually would like to see occupying a trustee seat. It would be wonderful if voting for three candidates was not allowed, but rather, number of times candidates are hit by a shoe (a strong measure of dislikability), ranked voting (or voting for one or at most two candidates, despite how many seats were open or how many candidates were running) was the norm. Because that third vote is often a throw-away vote, and elevates people into contention who really have no business serving on the board except as a "well, that was from out of left field" decision. It's not really the "will of the people" if everyone have two strong beliefs and one "wishy-washy" belief, but across the spectrum of voters, no majority shares the same strong beliefs, but all share the same "wishy-washy" belief. In Estes, a candidate often isn't qualified for the votes they receive, but rather (and the public strongly believes this, and falls in line) the votes they receive somehow qualify the candidate.
So look back over the last few elections, and ask yourself if one or more of the folks earning a seat on the town board was qualified, or simply less unqualified than their opponents. I'm not casting any stones, but Dorla Eisenlauer?
Comments
Post a Comment