Never forgetting perception

As apathetic as the turnout was in our fair haven on Monday, it seems the silver lining in that gloomy cloud is the fact we seem to have the highest percentage of voters who actually turned out to vote in the various local community elections.

The day after election chatter was very interesting.  Actually some very interesting chatting went on over the weekend.  

I made it a point to try and get the "pulse" if you will.  Now admittedly, as I stated in a previously piece it was a bit hard to get the true buzz on the street, but ....

Several interesting comments from some people on their position for the BPW matter.  

I use "position" because statistically and in probability not all the people I spoke with yesterday, and in fact over the weekend, actually voted. 

Still, even with the pathetically low turnout, while the margin of victory wasn't reflected in the low "buzz" before the vote, there is no mistaking the public sentiment after it.

I discussed yesterday the "simmering" concept. I had in the past been told point blank that is was why the TA article wasn't going out to a vote.  The longer people had to look at it the easier it would be to pick it apart. 

The vote Monday was extremely important to a number of people for reasons other than simply what was best for the town. Call it long term planning in a sense. Actions and statements, be they posted publicly or whispered behind the scenes do not go unnoticed. 

The only stepping stones that should be laid as part of this process are for a workable government that will meet the needs and desires of the public.  This isn't and shouldn't be looked at as an impossible task.

Ivory tower concepts are best left in the tower. 

A whole lot of people on both sides of the issue need to keep some things in mind. 

Size of the turnout is not likely to change the sentiment on a future retry. Indeed, trying this one again, without some rabbit being pulled out of a hat is more likely to backfire even more on the proponents.

Of those who voted on the ballot question, just over 67% were opposed to the question. 

To reach a 30% turnout, another 1600+/- votes would have to be cast. To pull off a tie, slightly over 63% of those additional votes would have to vote yes. essentially you have to assume an exact reversal of votes by each extra voter.

Not something I would count on using the same arguments and the same proposed reform.

So if you are a "yes" voter, because the special act says you get two more kicks at the can within the next few years, you better be able to shift your argument substantially. Not likely given the language you are stuck with though. 

You also ought to seriously consider just whether it is worth beating a perceived dead horse with a stick.  

If you are a "no" voter, and more specifically if your are the BPW think strong and hard about why this vote was taken.  Think even stronger and harder about not taking action that is going to provide ammunition to the argument to put the thing on the ballot again. 

As thin as the "yes" arguments were about what a wonderful thing the "new" committee would be, the BPW arguments against were in many ways a bit thin also. Keep that in mind.  

In truth, it may be this question is truly toast. 

In reality, if everyone is being honest, there is a need for a change to the status quo.  The question as is may be toast but the need to deal with the issue still very much exist. A fair percentage who voted no though viewed the proposed change as no more desirable or any better than that status quo.  

Simple reality, the perception was the proposed solution to a problem was no solution.

A statement I think that is also going to apply to some additional proposed solutions.

Anyway, more than enough on this one.

Be safe.