Monday's are tough days for writing this type of blog. First, the morning news is usually sparse at best. It has always been the day of the week, for me anyway, when you need a jump start in the "motivation" area for serious stuff. A Monday following a long holiday weekend, well let's just add a bit of weight to everything else that holds the motivation down.
So, just what is significant about today? Well from a numbers perspective, there are 63 days to the special election for the Board of Health seat.
Not sure if "special election" is correct. Re-do isn't apt, since a strict re-do is not going to happen. A new election? Might be the better term. Whatever.
Absent some other bump in the road, the election occurs 63 days from now. If you want the info on the deadlines for taking out papers, returning them, registering, etc. The information is posted on the Town's website.
A week from Thursday coming, 5:00 P.M. on July 18th to be exact, is the last day for requesting nomination papers. So we will all know soon enough whether we go to the polls with the same two choices.
It would be interesting to do a real survey to determine whether people have changed their minds about their prior votes. It would be more interesting if you could do one to determine with some certainty who will actually be voting.
Politically, I will play the pundit again and note that the appeal of a three candidate race is enough to make a pundit like myself near giddy. Yes I know, this is too serious a matter to deal with it in such a manner. Yet in all seriousness, in looking at the matter there is a certain legitimate appeal in such a prospect.
If we have only the same two candidates, are the results of a new election going to be universally accepted? Let us leave out the lofty sentiment that the results should be accepted. I will concede that point right now. the question is will the results be.
Can't you imagine all the arguments behind why this new election is tainted by people when their preferred candidate is defeated. Don't you envision the "*" many will be quick to place on this one?
Imagine if there is a turnout of say only 10% to 15%. Personally I would like to imagine a turnout that much higher than the April election, but does anyone see it?
A higher turnout than April would give some validity to the argument that "the people have spoken" even when you have to figure about 70% or more will stay home. At least a higher turnout would indicate the motivational factor of the race about the issue involved.
Notice the singular for "issue". There may be a whole bunch of smaller components forming that issue, but let's not kid ourselves, this election has one driving issue.
Not saying that is right, just saying that is the way I see it.
A win by a third candidate would be viewed as a rejection of the extremes of both camps. It would be the closest thing to a true mandate we are likely to see with the apathetic turnouts in our elections.
As intrigued as I am about a third candidate, as much as I would like to see one, the political animal in me doesn't see a serious third candidate coming out. By serious I mean one with a chance of pulling off a victory.
You might see a spoiler run though. Someone who may pull just enough votes from one of the other two so that to insure loss from the loss of votes. Just a what if I suppose.
So the long and the short of it, just 63 days until the election. As has been noted in the past about elections, two plus months is an eternity. That is plenty of time for something to happen which will swing the outcome. Those who do go and vote are going to be those people motivated to go and vote.
Those 63 days leaves plenty of time for people to get motivated. The best part, I am guessing if you can target the same number of people as votes you think you received in the last election, and can get those people to the polls, you probably win.
But still remember, all it takes is one thing to swing that important momentum, and once it starts swinging another small item or two can get it steam rolling. I could offer three definitive points in the April election campaigns that contributed to the outcome in the "Big Two".
I could, but I won't. I am betting most of you are smart enough to figure out the three all on your own. If you need a hint though only one is common to both elections.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see if the campaign groupies prefer the sweltering heat to the biting wind when holding signs.
Do you think any group is going to run a candidates night?
Think about that possibility. Two or three such events. Even with a strict two hour limit, even one hour and one-half, maybe we can get to some real hardball questions, with some real answers.
Just a suggestion or two, limit anyone asking a question to no more than 30 seconds. If you can't frame a question within that time, you are giving a speech, not asking a question. Believe it or not, people want to hear from the candidates.
Don't penalize any candidate for time used from asking questions. What happens is the voter is the one penalized because you take away from answers and other questions.
Don't let the candidates pick the people asking questions.
Max time for answer is two minutes. Anything longer than that becomes another speech.
Okay, there I go becoming giddy again. Might need to form an organization to hold a candidates' night.
An election is great from a blogger's perspective. The thing is, 63 days from now this blogger has a funny feeling that electing someone to deal with the turbine issue in a manner desired by the majority of people who show up and vote is going to be moot.
Who really knows though? If 63 days can be an eternity what does that make 663 days?
The BOH election has one driving issue. There is no doubt about that issue.
ReplyDeleteThere are more than 60 days until that election. The will of the people will be who determines the winner.
Finances and health are the two driving issues behind both camps.
Over the next two months everyone in town is going to know exactly how much each individual makes on the project based on population and how much each residential home owner makes on the project. The biggest issue will be how much the project owner makes vs the residential taxpayer. These figures are available and easy to document.
The residential abutters to the project worried about their health have much on their side. The state agency who funds studies for these projects has changed setbacks to residential homes up to 2000 feet. This group also has documentation , studies etc.
The third unknown is the general public.
Today the famous questionnaires are due no later than Monday, July 8, 2013, 4:00 PM. This is going to be the news of the week and may set the tone for the BOH election.
The questionnaire could become a pivotal document in the history of Fairhaven. This comes out only weeks after a Superior Court judge slammed the town for the way the election was conducted.
There are serious questions about the day to day operation of the town.
We all know what the financial impact of the project will be if it fails,another tax increase .Their is no cost associated with the health effects ,because to date their is no proof of real health effects.The state has changed the setbacks for turbines,but the Fairhaven turbines are grandfathered in. lets gets serious,we have read the questionnare how can this be considered as pivotal to anything.If we are serious ,go vote to see if anything changes.
ReplyDeleteIt would be great for several reasons to have a third name on the ballot.
ReplyDeleteIt would be extremely beneficial for the voters to be treated to at least one candidate's night. If it happened, I would look for the candidates to be open and honest with the facts, and not get into a head to head slamfest.
The absolutely most important point is that this election must be run according to the letter of the law. If the April election process had been done correctly, we wouldn't be in the situation that we are. The recount would have been done, and voters would have had to live with the result.
Anyone who watched a recent selectmen's meeting heard an attorney request that all parties involved be retrained ahead of time. I hope this request will be taken seriously. Can you imagine the uproar (not to mention embarrassment,) if this town has another faulty election?
An attorney request all parties involved to be retrained to do the job they have been doing,what a novel idea.This could open up another area of discussion,because we all know their are many other jobs in town being filled with unqualified people.This is commonplace among many towns in the state.Their complaint is the wages are not high enough to attract qualified people.
ReplyDeleteThe questionable election wasn't necessarily the fault of someone who was unqualified. But more likely someone qualified or not, who didn't pay attention to what they were doing or didn't do what they were supposed to do
ReplyDeleteLet's just hope it's run the way it's supposed to next time.
Unqualified versus qualified but didnt do their job leaves us with the same results an election process that was a shambles.The whole election process includes check-ins,check-outs,police protection,ballot boxes,counters,an verification of the votes.The blame has to be spread around by all the parties involved,its just system of checks an balances.A fifth grader could do it..Now its time for a big gulp..
ReplyDelete