As we wind down to polls closing, there are going to be broader winners and losers than just among the three candidates. With the sharp distinction between Rena Getz on one side and Bill Humphrey and, to a lesser extent, Kathy Winters on the other, this can fairly be considered a referendum on zoning and development. Either the pro- and anti-development forces are going to be able to claim an early victory. There is no other issue on which there’s meaningful difference among the three.
If the anti-development forces think that they’ve got most of the city on their side, they should expect a very strong showing from Candidate Getz. If Candidate Getz can’t win in Ward 5, with Northland under active consideration, then the antis have been overstating how much they represent the mood of the people.
If Candidate Getz is first or a strong second, that would be a setback for the pros. Third or even a weak second should be a sign that pro-development candidates are in a strong position for November’s general election. It seems unlikely that a second-place Candidate Getz would pick up the votes from a third-place Candidate Winters or Humphrey.
If I’m a developer, I’m watching this race very carefully and adjusting my negotiating position accordingly.
Hit me. What do I have wrong in this analysis?
Sean: You are forgetting that preliminaries (especially in a single Ward) are important only to the acutely aware political voters who know that their vote has added weight because of other voters’ apathy. When the voting tallies are complete, I would look at the financials to see how hard the development community is funding its hopes. I would also look at the fact that Ward 5 has a hard-core progressive Democratic population organized after Engine 6 that is hardly representative of the City’s total voting population, so no matter who wins today, it is hardly representative of the City as a whole. No side, in my opinion, can claim victory until November!
Sean,
Agree the election results will reflect popular opinion about residential development (Northland), but the perspective might be harder to judge based on such a small sample size of voters (even in what is now a “second front” in Ward 5). November will tell us more.
I think it should be clear that a majority of voting residents citywide are not opposed to some increased residential density, based on the results of the past several elections. This isn’t to discount what is a very substantial “anti-development” minority.
Even though I vote in 8, Ward 5/Needham Street is my neck of the woods. I drive through the Oak Street intersection every weekday and shop on Needham Street multiple times a week. And I want Northland to redevelop the heck out of what is now a wasteland and replace it with lots of people and interesting businesses. I highly doubt 800 units will be built, but I’d bet at least 500 will be.
Either way it will be a big improvement.
Sean: btw, today is a preliminary election, not a primary…although I admit ignorance as to the difference. Are there any high school government students out there who don’t need to use Google who might want to enlighten us?
Hi Sallee, I’m long past high school but I am a prelim vet myself. I believe primaries are partisan, preliminaries are non-partisan.
My guess: preliminary has no fixed definition that is distinct from primary, but folks chose it because it sounds less partisan.
So, a distinction without a difference! Thanks to both of you.
Jake is right. A preliminary is just a runoff in order to get the ballot to 2 candidates (or 2x the number of seats, e.g. 4 candidates in a Newton at-large race) so that one can be elected by a majority. A primary is held by a party to determine its candidate to run in a partisan election.
Shame we can’t just do ranked-choice voting and not need preliminary elections at all.
Final result: (unofficial)
491 Bill
483 Kathy
437 Rena
Who’s ready for November?
I’m not sure how Bryan gets unofficial results ahead of the results posted on the Newton website, but if his results are accurate, it appears that roughly 2 out of 3 voters went for the more “pro-development” candidates, Humphrey and Winters. However, it’s hard to know if this is because of the general pro-development sentiment in Newton or because Humphrey and Winters both campaigned more extensively with much more door-to-door than Getz did, and Winters also had the backing of the very well-organized Newton Democratic Party. It remains to be seen if the pro-development bent will remain in other races that have higher turn-out and candidates who spend more time campaigning.
Jeez, the loser here seems to be democracy. Was this whole race decided by only 1500 people from the entire ward? Or putting it another way, one candidate was eliminated by fewer than 50 votes. I was agreeing with your analysis, Sean, before the vote came in; but can this really be considered a referendum on zoning and development with such tiny participation?
Paul,
I’m going to research some numbers, but I don’t think this is a super low turnout election. Newton wards are small political entities. Alternative take: this is a super exciting illustration of the power of each voter and the efficacy of retail politics.
Anyway, if you’re disappointed with these numbers, wait until you see the Ward 7 ward councilor numbers in November.
I agree with you Paul! The strategy of holding local elections in odd-year, very low turn-out elections, hugely favors candidates with the backing of very well-organized groups. The only such group in Newton right now is the Newton Democratic Party.
Sarah,
Arguably, this is even a bigger rebuke of the anti-development folks than you set out. Low-turnout elections, like ward councilor preliminary races, generally favor the more energized. If the anti-development forces in Ward 5, who we know are super energized by Northland, are not sufficient to get more than 1/3 of the votes against the arguably less-energized pro-development forces, this is a big setback for the cause.
Alternatively, I had folks tell me that Candidate Getz they didn’t take as strong an anti-development position in campaign events and on her web site as she has taken in private and in pre-campaign fora. Insiders know her as adamantly anti-development, but maybe she didn’t distinguish herself enough from the other candidates.
@Paul Levy. Please be careful Paul. You are making the case for the Yes on Charter crew that the Ward races should be city wide… or at the very least have a larger pool of constituents. Perhaps shrinking the number of Wards down to 4 rather than 8? 😉
congrats to all three candidates. If this is Official, next steps for Bill and Kathy is on to November.
In 2017, contested wards drew only about 3000 total votes, which amounts to perhaps 50% turnout of eligible voters, assuming 11,000 citizens, about half of whom are citizen adults, in each ward. So this amounts to about 25% turnout of eligibles. Not great, but not surprising for a local election in the U.S. Maybe we need fewer, larger wards.
Independent of Rena Getz’s campaign energy, I’m surprised that the development-skeptical candidate couldn’t muster enough votes to even make the November ballot. That crowd of voters may not be large, but they seem motivated enough to avoid under-representation. I think @Sean is onto something.
@John, rather than fewer, larger wards, I would advocate for local elections to be held in even numbered years when twice the number of voters turn out, if we want the most democratic results.
@Sarah – It is pretty simple, really. People in Ward 5 who were at the polling places took pictures of the precinct results and once people did that at all 4 precincts, the numbers started getting texted around in political circles.
I just happen to think it’s helpful to get that information to the people who frequent Village14 as quickly as possible.
Paul Levy is spot on. With a less than 50 vote margin between the third place candidate, it is hardly a referendum on zoning!
It’s reductive to assert this race was/is about development alone. Bill Humphrey is a deeply informed and refreshing presence– the only candidate to point out that there are people barely hanging on in this affluent city (and perhaps we can find ways to help them stay here); to think creatively about affordable housing and challenge us on climate change. Bill spent the summer right here in Newton showing up at community meetings about traffic and gas leaks, knocking on doors and writing his informative newsletter. I think anyone paying attention has to admire this level of civic engagement and even acknowledge a vision for a progressive city.
I’m with Doug L. Some flavor of ranked choice voting for all of City Council has clear advantages over the current hybrid ward system, including the elimination of low-tally preliminary elections. It would also ad allow the size of the council to be set almost arbitrarily. Candidates with strong local support can still be elected like in a ward system. Or support can be concentrated in any number of other ways (single issue, gender or racial representation, etc).
Folks, I don’t think this was a low-turnout election. See my other post. The total votes cast (1431) is almost as many votes cast in the last contested general election Ward 5 ward race in a non-mayoral year (1621 in 2007).
It’s a small political jurisdiction.
And, this was a race designed for a candidate like Rena Getz. Hot local issue. Passionate folks on her side. And, she couldn’t get a third of the vote. They won’t say it out loud, but every incumbent but one is breathing a lot easier tonight.
1500 out of about 50000 voters is actually a decent sample size. If anything, this is an overestimation of NVA’s power. A low-turnout election in a ward slated for a large development probably maximizes the anti-development vote.
Every incumbent but two.
1500 may not be bad for a ward preliminary, but as others have noted the sample is skewed. Ranked choice doesn’t need a preliminary; it uses the greater and more representative turnout of the regular election.
And my own opinions on issues like development aside, I don’t by principal think it’s a good thing for a (I believe) minority view like limited development, or many other minority views, to be shut out completely by our election system. It leads to alienation, distrust, and losing people from the process.
Ranked choice prevents poorly distributed minority views from being shut out completely, provided they have a core base of support.
Michael,
One councilor and one neighborhood activist managed to get the Riverside developer to take a huge chunk out of office space and residential by threatening a referendum. Whatever else you might say, hyper-local interests are not under-represented in land use decisions.
Sean, that may be true by the grace of another mechanism (the referendum, or threat thereof).
But what about people of color, a range of socio-economic conditions, or social justice causes? Ranked choice puts them all on the same playing field in a way that is extremely natural for the voter. It gives their numbers a chance to translate to representation.
I’m not humoring myself to believe the city has the stomach to actually consider such a thing after a bruising charter reform fight. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a worth idea to think about.
Running the numbers, FWIW:
– Last Ward 8 registered voter total I found (Sep 2018 primary) is 7,725
– If 1413 is the final vote total, that represents 18.3% turnout.
We can argue that that’s “good” turnout for preliminary, or simply an abysmal turnout in general, but it is a bit lower than that primary (which saw 23% from Ward 8)
(I live in Ward 1)