The city will publish the unofficial election results here.
It’s all over but the counting: Polls are now closed.
by Village 14 Election Desk | Mar 3, 2020 | Newton | 20 comments
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
The city will publish the unofficial election results here.
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
I’ve seen the internal numbers and YES will win by at least a few thousand votes. Still waiting on some early votes to come in though for final number.
YES proves that Newton puts its money where its values are.
How does one see internal numbers? Are Election Commission folks sharing returns with you? I’m just curious – what does that mean?
At 9:15pm and no published results, that’s very good to know, Brian.
Campaigns send volunteers to each Ward and Precinct to report back numbers.
This is the longest I’ve ever seen it take for the city to post results.
*sigh*
Yes for Newton’s Future claimed victory over 30 minutes ago.
Excruciatingly slow.
“Internal numbers” indicate that the No vote won 5 precincts. Overall margin in the neighborhood of 60-40 for Yes. Strictly unofficial.
I bet it’s taking longer because they have to consolidate the Early Voting results with the votes from the precincts today. This was the first time they did centralized counting at city hall of early voting.
So far we’re at 58-42.
I’m not sure whether the election outcome is a result of broader values behind a yes vote versus an indication that people have faith in the Council to do a reasonable job in negotiating and reviewing such complicated development proposals. Either reason is a good sign for the future, though.
The unofficial results from the City website indicate that ‘Yes’ won by a ratio of roughly 3:2. Four precincts voted ‘No’: 4/2 (Lower Falls), 5/1 (Upper Falls), 8/3 and 8/4 (collectively Countryside and south of Dedham St).
So there was definitely localized opposition, but the fact that NLF voted ‘No’ indicates that Riverside was also on people’s mind. With that in mind, it was interesting to note that the precincts most impacted by the Austin St and Washington St developments (2/1 and 2/2) voted ‘yes’.
I’ll note that the folks who maintained that March 3 was not going to be a bigger primary date than a special election later were proven to be wrong. Over 50% turnout. March 3 brought out half of registered voters. March 3 was the right date to get the biggest pool of voters.
As for 2/1 and 2/2 voting yes, I think that Austin Street not being the end of the world as we know it might have changed some minds about folks claiming that in other parts of the city.
Also 58/42 according to the Mayor’s email. That’s a much bigger margin than I would have thought.
1/4 was also on the No side. About 58% Yes overall. A good showing for Newton
Uh, Paul, the voters elected the Council that did the deal that reflects the broader values.
Broader values, FTW.
Always nice to be reassured by a sarcastic comment from @Sean. But, uh, many people I talked with said the issue was too complicated to understand totally, and they trusted our elected representatives to have done their homework. These were sentiments about governing, not traffic, housing, etc.
Broader question for @Sean: why can’t you be gracious and/or pleasant instead of snarky? Do you think you are more persuasive with your approach?
Paul,
Sincerely, that wasn’t sarcasm. It wasn’t even meant as snark. It was genuine incredulity at your logic. Seriously, I don’t understand how you would not see broader values implicated in the vote to elect city councilors just as much as in the referendum vote. Why did the people who trusted their elected officials vote for them in the first place? Presumably because they shared the values that informed the city councilors’ efforts.
In any case, I appreciate that you value civility. Your policing it here is a service to the commenting community. (That, by the way, is sarcasm.)
Also, I try to maintain a healthy balance among graciousness, pleasantness, and snark. I’ll see about tweaking the ratios. (Seems like sarcasm, but actually isn’t.)
There you go again. I’m not policing anything. This is just pure nastiness, @Sean, disguised as logical discourse. You’re too bright not to know how the words you’ve chosen will be interpreted.
Paul,
I’ll let yours be the last words in our exchange. Have a nice rest of your day.