Newton voters will elect its first-ever City Council one week from today, as well as decide two school committee contests and decide if Newton should open its charter and, if so, who should sit on it.
How are you feeling with one week to go? Are there issues you feel are being ignored? Candidates that excite or candidates that scare you? Share your election related thoughts here.
Excited for the final stage of this campaign. If anyone has any questions about the Charter in this final week, please feel free to reach out. All my contact info is on the website, http://www.bryanbarash.com/!
Note to Charter Commission candidates:
Uncontested elections do not reflect democracy. Voters deserve a choice in each and every election. There should be no automatic winner in any election. I urge the members of the Charter Commission [once elected] to consider providing voters with the option of voting for “none of the above” on every local ballot.
I’ve been surprised by the generally low level of intensity surrounding our contested aldermen contests (with the exception of Ward 2 but even that seems low key compared to the preliminaries.
I wonder if folks just assume the results are a foregone conclusion? Or if there’s another reason why those contests seem so quiet?
@Mike Striar, I know you have been an advocate of “None of the Above” but does that have ramifications that would be worse? Many of the Charter Candidates, myself included, answer that a change in the size of the board is a question of what we ask the board to do and cannot be answered independently. I wonder if this falls into the same category.
Likely, None of the Above would not be a winner in most cases but if it did win the current charter would call for another election. Perhaps that would promote new candidates to enter the race but I think the commission would need to consider if a possible, although not probable, endless loop of special elections would make sense or if other changes would need to accompany your suggestion. Would you also be advocating that the space be left open till the next election or have the current or other means fill the vacancy?
Even the Ward 2 challengers seem quiet. It’s their supporters I see and hear mostly.
Personally, I’ve been spending most of my time thinking and talking about the Charter Commissiin candidates. 22 people are a lot to learn enough about to select nine who will determine the proposal for the structure of Newton’s government. I think it’s the most important election. It’s important to get the right mixture of background, knowledge of governmental structure, ability to listen and communicate, research skills etc., to include both wonks and regular citizens, to steer clear of those purporting predetermined outcomes and those trying to hide them and to find a group who can work together to submit a proposal that isn’t littered with unintended consequences and little parts that will keep it from passing.
Our government will work this way for a very long time. Our City Council and SC will have elections in the near future. That’s not to say I don’t find them very important but I’m really not wrorried about a terrible outcome.
Tab Endorsements are out and no surprises. All incumbents for the SC and the at large councilor races. I didn’t see ward councilor endorsements.
For the Charter Commission they endorsed four:
Rhanna Kidwell
Brooke Lipsitt
Howard Hayward
Josh Krintzman.
Congratulations and Good Luck
I just realized that I have to vote this week because I might be out of town on Tuesday. Decisions, decisions! There are some really good candidates running for Charter Commission.
Marti, I don’t know if you are using a psuedo name or not, but if we haven’t met, I would love to talk to you. My phone is 617-795-7076 and you can email me at [email protected]. Please give me a call/email if you have a question. This goes for anyone that has a question for me or the campaign in general. Thanks.
@Groot Gregory– My premise is simple. Democracy requires choice. Uncontested “elections” are by their nature undemocratic…
To use an extreme example just for emphasis… Let’s say we have an unopposed candidate, and just days before an election that person is accused, charged, or convicted of a crime. Election Day comes, they walk into the voting booth, cast a single vote for themselves, and automatically win elective office. Thousands of other voters are powerless to stop such a travesty. Their only recourse is to leave that ballot blank, which effectively does nothing. Not a good scenario, especially when you consider our Charter also lacks any recall or impeachment provision, [another area I’d like to see the Commission address].
As another example, you have a candidate like current SC Chair, Matt Hills, who on multiple occasions strategically violated open meeting laws designed to protect the public’s right to know. Hills is running unopposed, and I’m sure he’ll get some votes. But I believe he would lose if voters had the choice to vote “none of the above.”
As to how an office gets filled when an unopposed candidate is rejected by voters, I see several options. Not all of them necessitate that “endless loop of special elections” you expressed concern about. But it would be presumptuous of me to suggest that any solution I’d propose [to filling the seat of a unopposed candidate who was rejected by voters] would be better than a solution determined through the thoughtful process of the Charter Commission.
But I’ll leave you with this question… Should a candidate who a majority of voters believe unsuitable for office, be able to elect themselves to that office? And secondarily, should that person be able to remain in office because their colleagues have no recourse to remove them?
@Mike Striar, I think it would be good to propose something and not leave it to others in this case. One question I had, and perhaps you indirectly answered it, was should the position be left open. If the only interested candidate is the convicted criminal, quoting the extreme case, then either we need an open seat or some other solution outside of the electorate but I think your goal is to keep these decisions within the hands of the voter. I want this to be decided by the voters too. Perhaps some common ground.
So to answer your questions, I actually think the best person who can take the office should win the election based on the votes cast in his/her favor as being better than No One. I am sure you have worked with a diverse group of people and know that most can provide some value, even if unqualified. Now I do think recall is not the same as allowing open seats after election day and is worthy of consideration. Someone could be recalled and still be the only candidate standing in a special election leading to resuming the elected seat.
A weak field of candidates for one voter or perceived by a majority of voters can be a problem to effective government. But is it better than no government? I know there will be some on V14 that could argue this is true but I am not so sure. I am a strong advocate of contested elections and often will not vote in an uncontested race unless I really like the sole candidate(s) and I don’t vote against someone but look for the better / best from the pack. I would rather make the bar easier for new candidates to replace poor officials at the next election then cause open seats with additional special elections.
Leaving a seat open creates an equal representation issue, and is likely unconstitutional.
In the case of an uncontested candidate being rejected by the voters, I would favor either the Mayor or City Council appointing someone to fill the seat. That appointed representative would hold the seat until the next election held in the city for any purpose, at which time they would face the voters and any challenger[s]. The winner would then complete the initial term.
Marti – I’m with Tom. If you’re thinking about charter commission candidates. I’ve been talking to many residents, as well as present and former aldermen and school committee members.I’d love to talk to you as well: [email protected]
I as well: [email protected]
What I like about Mike’s idea is that it forces unoppsed candidates to go out and minimally campaign. Unopposed people should have to go out and meet people as part of their job to understand what their constituents are thinking. I like the idea, but I don’t like it if it forces a special election or a mayoral/BOC appointment. There needs to be another solution. Maybe the elections committee can be in charge of making the appointment or something like that.
I met alderman Jim Cote when he first ran as alderman two years ago. One of the things that most impressed me about him was that he was running unopposed but he was campaigning. He was out meeting voters, talking to people,introducing himself and behaving as if he did have an opponent.
He won that election hands down. Even against non-of-the-above it would have been a landslide too 😉
@Marti, I’d love to speak with you as well. Feel free to reach me at [email protected]. Thanks
@Mike Striar, Thanks for you thoughts on the possible outcomes. Maybe you are convincing me of the potential on None of the Above now with the solution to no winner as an appointed position. This could add someone that has proven to some group that an individual may be appropriate to fill the position, who is not the candidate that could not get the votes.
@tomsheff, I think you missed the point Mike was making. It is more than forcing a single candidate to campaign. One may be a great campaigner and not have a clue about how to perform the position the candidate is running for.
As I have been thinking about this I can see two interesting scenarios. The first is a new candidate running unopposed who may not have demonstrated a capacity for the position but would be able to learn on the job. I would prefer that person wins, EVEN with one vote. The second, an unopposed incumbent, that either did not learn the job after the first election or lost the support of the voters. In the second case I could be convinced that an appointee is a better option if the majority votes for None of the Above.