Election Lessons and Observations

Some comments along these lines have already been posted in the "NEWSFLASH" discussion, but it seemed that a second-day thread might be useful for gathering thoughts in one place. Here are a few openers from someone who keeps his ballot a secret but sometimes lets his curiosity show.

Turnout: In an off year, on a rainy day, the 3,900 votes were more than in any Maplewood primary since before 2008, which was the earliest year I could find on the Essex County Board of Elections website. That's about 30 percent more than for the three-way primary in 2011, and about 20 percent more than in the contested presidential primary year of 2008. The total might even under-reflect the number of voters compared with other years, because with the top finisher running alone, it's possible that more of them than usual pushed a button for only one candidate rather than two. Aside from the caveat that turnout was still low enough to be exploited by a niche campaign whose supporters were motivated to go to the polls (if that's what someone wants to argue), was it a surprise? Was it significant?

"New Blood": If that's the message of the result, what does the Township Committee take from it? Should members have seen this coming? Which leads to ...

"Out of Touch": I've read that the TC made changes to the development process after dissatisfaction with how the Station House turned out. A backlash occurred nonetheless. Does "out of touch" still apply to what Post House opponents think is best for the process and the township? Was the TC out of touch with what the real problems were with the process and what residents want? Or was the election beside the point in either case? Which leads to ...

MOL: One poster predicted a close vote. Earlier, another predicted it wouldn't be close at all, which was correct -- just not in the way I think she expected. Meanwhile, author's broken clock struck again. Why was the consensus that was so strong on MOL so different from what ended up happening? Any contributors care to elaborate on where they felt they went wrong, if indeed anybody feels that way? Which leads to ...

Weather. Those threads still appear to be pretty reliable.

Did Jerry campaign? I could count on one hand the number of Ryan signs that I saw. Why did Adams have so many solo signs out there if she were running as a ticket

I never saw any solo Adams signs. I saw them, along with Greg, at the Springfield Avenue May Fest thing. They were out there.

Dave: I have already posted my take on the results in the thread I started but let me respond to what you wrote here as well:

Voter turnout: 1,959 votes cast (assuming figures Jerry reported are final and assuming each person voting cast two votes) is still a too-small percentage of potential voters who were eligible to vote in this election. Given the two candidate debates (both available for viewing on YouTube), the visibility and approachability of all three candidates during the campaign, the energy with which Greg and his supporters in particular pushed to get out the vote, I would have hoped the total number of votes should have come closer to those generally cast in an off year general election.

New blood: With only one of the four candidates (Democratic and Republican combined) being an incumbent, it is a given that at least one of the candidates elected to the TC in in November will represent new blood on the TC. IMHO, new blood by itself is not an argument for voting for a candidate. More important are the skills, knowledge, and ability that new blood will demonstrate when elected and how quickly that new blood can get up to speed on the duties and responsibilities that come with the office to which that new blood aspires. IMHO these factors were not adequately explored in the campaign.

What we had in this Democratic Party primary to a significant extent was a negative vote against the voting record of the TC in general and the incumbent candidate in particular when it came to a single issue to which a highly verbal and influential group of persons were vehemently opposed.

Out of Touch: First of all, I think a voter considering the TC out of touch with the realities facing our community needs to look at the extent to which the incumbent running for office is himself to be considered out-of-touch. I didn't see or hear any specifics in this campaign which attributed out-of-touch actions to the incumbent candidate as opposed to a group action that has been evolving for 20 years with massive opportunity for everyone's involvement in the decision making process during that entire period. Secondly, I think a charge of being out-of-touch to be valid needs to reflect much more than a single position on a single issue. If the majority of voters did indeed feel the incumbent was out-of-touch with current needs of the community, this conclusion should have been based on the candidate's entire voting record as contrasted with the voting record of the township committee as a whole.

MOL: I saw a lot of discussion of the post office site in the MOL threads and some question as to the language used by some of the individuals supporting one of the candidates but there was very little if any discussion of the comparative abilities of the candidates themselves or of their positions on the wide range of issues which should have served a a basis for making an informed decision in this election. Much of this discussion moved to Village Green, Facebook, and private conversations. IMHO MOL had very little if any impact on the outcome of this election.

With regard to MOL, did anyone really think that this board is representative of anything other than a handful of prolific posters? Online commenters in general don't represent anyone other than themselves. As to why some predictions were off and others were spot on? Unless one of the candidates commissioned a legitimate poll, no one really knew how the election would turn out. Some people may have had an idea of how many people they could get out to the polls for their candidate. But generally people were just guessing. And when you guess, sometimes you're right, and sometimes you're wrong. And the one thing we can say about MOL is that a lot of people aren't shy about taking a very authoritative tone, even when they don't have any evidence to back it up.

I think people are going to take whatever they want from this election. But unless someone did an exit poll, no one really knows precisely what this election was a mandate for. Sure it was probably in large part about "keeping the village a village," but as we've hashed over ad nauseum on MOL, it's not clear what that specifically means. Does it mean keeping the PO building? Does it mean replacing it, but with something smaller? Or with something more "attractive?" Does it just mean slowing down the process and soliciting more public input? And given that the PO site process isn't likely to stop so that we can wait for a new TC to take office in January, is the primary even relevant to that process? Isn't it likely that it's going to continue to move forward on the original timetable? And then the next move for the opponents isn't to wait for January, but to consider their legal options. And that would have happened no matter who won yesterday.

joan_crystal said:

What we had in this Democratic Party primary to a significant extent was a negative vote against the voting record of the TC in general and the incumbent candidate in particular when it came to a single issue to which a highly verbal and influential group of persons were vehemently opposed.

That's it in a nutshell. And the remainder of your comments are spot on.

This was a different kind of election. Voters paired Greg with the Post Office building not realizing that would probably be done with by January 1. No one could complain about Greg's previous record because there was none. Jerry did not seem to campaign very much, thinking he would have no problem.

Solomon said:

joan_crystal said:

What we had in this Democratic Party primary to a significant extent was a negative vote against the voting record of the TC in general and the incumbent candidate in particular when it came to a single issue to which a highly verbal and influential group of persons were vehemently opposed.

That's it in a nutshell. And the remainder of your comments are spot on.

Absolutely agree.

Thanks, all, for the responses so far.

Re turnout: My math, using the "under vote" to account for single votes (based on how Jerry Ryan defined it in another thread), indicates turnout on Tuesday was 2,281, give or take one or two voters. That's one-third higher than the three-way 2011 primary. To match the off-year general election turnout of 2013 (3,528, according to my math), these campaigns would have had to double the comparable 2011 turnout. I wonder, joan_crystal, is that a fair bar to set? If it is, I also wonder, what would 3,500 voters tell us about township preferences that 2,300 would not? At some point (and that point is indeed a subjective one), it seems to me the limitations of turnout have to be accepted for what they are; otherwise, almost any result can be disputed on those grounds.

Unless everyone who voted only placed one vote for TC, then there weren't anywhere near 3900 voters. I think MOST people probably used both of their votes. (I know I did.) See the other thread for more discussion of this, but it appears that there were more like 2100-2300 voters.

Still waiting to find out how many registered Democrats there are in town (a number which probably changed yesterday) to know what percentage this was.

ETA - DaveSchmidt, I think we were posting at the same time.

Dave: In drawing the conclusion you reach, we are faced with the same problem as the one we faced with the conflicting results in the Maplewoodian and Village Green polls. The number of persons casting votes in and of itself does not prove very much since we cannot tell from these figures is how the eligible non-voters would have voted had they cast their ballot in this election.

If we take the position that the outcome of this election was largely dependent upon the number of pledged supporters each candidate was able to get to the polls, that might lead to the conclusion that the results might have been different if more of the less politically involved voters had voted in yesterday's primary.

If we assume that the persons voting in yesterday's election were a true random sample of the opinions of everyone who was eligible to vote whether or not they chose to do so, then we can view this as a win for the cause that was projected by so many of the verbal supporters as being at the heart of the campaign.

Either way, since the results are what counts, it should be enough for the campaign you represent to be able to declare that their candidate got the most votes in the election and to be able to use that fact to keep up the momentum for the election in November.

ml1 said:
With regard to MOL, did anyone really think that this board is representative of anything other than a handful of prolific posters?

Except the support expressed for Jerry Ryan and the Post House process (if not always for the building itself) went well beyond a handful of prolific posters, to include what I considered an impressive roster of endorsers whom I would expect to be more representative of the community. I can look past the never-in-doubt scolds. Scratching my head over the rest, though.

One might posit that folks who are active on MOL are more informed (albeit likely also more opinionated) than others in town about many local issues.

You can probably draw whatever conclusion you like from that.

joan_crystal said:
Either way, since the results are what counts, it should be enough for the campaign you represent to be able to declare that their candidate got the most votes in the election and to be able to use that fact to keep up the momentum for the election in November.

I like that way of putting it. Thanks again.

Out of over 9000 registered Democrats. It's pathetic how few people vote in this country.

sac said:
One might posit that folks who are active on MOL are more informed (albeit likely also more opinionated) than others in town about many local issues.

True, but I'd also expect that description to apply to almost any resident who went out to vote on a rainy day for an off-year primary election.

Suzie2 said:
Out of over 9000 registered Democrats. It's pathetic how few people vote in this country.

Which is how you get a Republican Senate.

BTW, where did you get that figure of 9000?

LOST said:

Suzie2 said:
Out of over 9000 registered Democrats. It's pathetic how few people vote in this country.

Which is how you get a Republican Senate.
BTW, where did you get that figure of 9000?

If all Democrats voted we'd probably have a Democratic senate. But then, if all Republicans also voted we'd probably still have a Republican senate.

The senate is very unfair. The proportional representation of votes to Senators does not apply. You have a state like Wyoming with 580,000 residents having the same senate votes as California with 38,000,000. That favors the Republican party. Its de-facto gerrymandering on a national level, the group favored being the low population states.

The senate disproportionate representation is based on 18th Century demographics and is enshrined in our constitution. If the constitution did not specify this it would have been found unconstitutional, violating the one-person, one-vote rule.

Definition

The rule that, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, legislative voting districts must be the same in population size. The idea behind the rule is that one person’s voting power ought to be roughly equivalent to another person’s within the state. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).

LOST said:

Suzie2 said:
Out of over 9000 registered Democrats. It's pathetic how few people vote in this country.

Which is how you get a Republican Senate.
BTW, where did you get that figure of 9000?

As of 2011 anyway. Middle of page 7 of:

http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/election-results/2011-essex-co-summary-report.pdf

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:
With regard to MOL, did anyone really think that this board is representative of anything other than a handful of prolific posters?

Except the support expressed for Jerry Ryan and the Post House process (if not always for the building itself) went well beyond a handful of prolific posters, to include what I considered an impressive roster of endorsers whom I would expect to be more representative of the community. I can look past the never-in-doubt scolds. Scratching my head over the rest, though.

I suppose the answer to that question lies with the rationale of a) those who did not vote (I surmise typical primary malaise may be a significant contributor as I never got the sense this was a Bauer thing), and b) those who voted against Jerry. To the latter it seems the answer is at least twofold: a majority of single-issue voters against the PO (similar to why you always see the loyal opposition at TC meetings and out with tables in MA and not those in favor), and the smaller number of which who hung their hat on the less-tangible "new blood", BOE angles

Suzie2 said:

LOST said:

Suzie2 said:
Out of over 9000 registered Democrats. It's pathetic how few people vote in this country.

Which is how you get a Republican Senate.
BTW, where did you get that figure of 9000?

As of 2011 anyway. Middle of page 7 of:
http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/election-results/2011-essex-co-summary-report.pdf

OK. Page 7. I see it now.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:
With regard to MOL, did anyone really think that this board is representative of anything other than a handful of prolific posters?

Except the support expressed for Jerry Ryan and the Post House process (if not always for the building itself) went well beyond a handful of prolific posters, to include what I considered an impressive roster of endorsers whom I would expect to be more representative of the community. I can look past the never-in-doubt scolds. Scratching my head over the rest, though.

I think just being on MOL, especially if you've been here for years means you knew about the Post Office development for a long time. That's why a lot of people here have tended to be at least respectful of the process (imho). They tend to know that the TC didn't just spring this on people last year. They tend to be aware that there was a review process going on. And that's not to disparage people who weren't aware. People have busy lives, jobs, family, etc, and they're not paying close attention to every real estate development in Maplewood or South Orange.

The last paragraph is Unaffiliated. Someone in that category can show up at the Polls and declare for one Party or the other and vote in the Primary. Therfore going by the 2011 figures 14951 people were eligible to vote yesterday.

BG9 said:

The proportional representation of votes to Senators does not apply.
...
The senate disproportionate representation is based on 18th Century demographics and is enshrined in our constitution.

I believe the disproportionate representation of the Senate was based on political theory in cognizant defiance of 18th-century demographics, which were skewed then, too. But as a born and raised Delawarean, I may be a little biased.

ml1 said:

I think just being on MOL, especially if you've been here for years means you knew about the Post Office development for a long time. That's why a lot of people here have tended to be at least respectful of the process (imho). They tend to know that the TC didn't just spring this on people last year. They tend to be aware that there was a review process going on. And that's not to disparage people who weren't aware. People have busy lives, jobs, family, etc, and they're not paying close attention to every real estate development in Maplewood or South Orange.

Whereas the previously unaware people who were spurred to vote would have been more open to the narrative presented by the Post House opponents? That could be.

Absolutely. The issue that many had (including myself) was with the narrative itself.

I have a somewhat different take.

While Author, Ms. Sechzer and others were very much in opposition to the TC plans and joined onto Lembrich's campaign because his Platform agreed with their views I believe there were others just "out to get" Jerry Ryan. Ms. Adams, who was the endorsed candidate of the MDC, Ryan's running mate and therefore part of "the establishment" received almost as many votes as Lembrich.

Fred Profeta was Lembrich's chief supporter and may have actually recruited him to run. To my knowledge neither Fred nor Greg were originally part of OhNo or Engage. I do not believe Lembrich decided to run for TC because he opposed the plans for the PO. After all he sought the endorsement of the MDC. Perhaps a Member of that Committee can tell us whether Greg mentioned the Post Office at his interview. He and Fred may have just latched on to the Anti-PO movement as a campaign strategy.

When Fred decided to run for the TC as a Democrat after losing as an Independent he latched on to the movement protesting the Reval to fuel his own campaign.

"Politics ain't bean bag" and a candidate is entitled to pursue any strategy and everyone is entitled to express his or her opinion. And I just did.

Solomon..............correct. Neither Mr. Profetta or Mr. Lembrich were involved with Engage or OhNo60

Seems to me that unless a professional and scientific poll is conducted, we will never know precisely why Lembrich won and Ryan lost.

And as we've seen, despite the many things this town does well, conducting professional and scientific polls isn't one of them.

BG9 said:
The senate disproportionate representation is based on 18th Century demographics and is enshrined in our constitution. If the constitution did not specify this it would have been found unconstitutional, violating the one-person, one-vote rule.

Not demographics, it reflects 18th century politics. Small states would not have agreed to join the union without this in the constitution, and the large states needed the small states to join, so this was the resulting compromise.

I think Jerry lost because he didn't campaign enough and assumed he would be re-elected. It reminds me of Janine Bauer in South Orange four or five years ago.