There were predictions that the candidates who were winners in the election would be tied to a yes or no vote on the charter, including the mayor although both endorsed a yes vote on the charter. Predictions were that if the no vote won, so would Lennon and candidates who did not support the proposed charter. This scenario did not happen.
Our new mayor is Ruthanne Fuller and the No vote won. In many down ballot contests the candidates won who supported the charter.
I think the fallacy is in attempting to determine why a voter would vote no on the proposed charter. It was assumed that no voters were anti-development when many were just pro ward-elected councilors and what they saw as an insult to democracy by electing councilors entirely city-wide.
What do think?
I think this is an indication that small minded parochialism is something that cuts across political boundaries. We are united in wishing to remain divided. Lovely.
Exactly. I’m not anti-development, but I believe in having ward councilors. I’ve never lived anyplace other than Newton where the city councilors were all elected at large, and don’t know of anyplace else that has this weird hybrid where residency is restricted for some at-large seats.
Different wards/villages have different problems and needs. I think each deserves to say who they want to represent them on the city council.
I’m also pro-development and believe in having ward councilors. In fact, I would prefer to have ONLY ward councilors. Like Meredith, Newton is the only place I’ve ever lived where the municipal legislature isn’t entirely composed of representatives elected by geographic districts. I would much prefer to vote for 1 or 2 ward councilors of whom I’m very knowledgeable than try to make meaningful choices and vote for 17 (or 12). I do find it difficult to be informed about so many different candidates and I’m sure that I’m not alone in this. I also suspect that this large number of races leads to a pro-incumbent bias (as long as the incumbents aren’t notorious).