It’s no surprise that many Newton voters find our elections confusing. So many good people running for so many positions. How do you decide?
You can study each candidate and their positions. Everyone “should” do this, but it takes time and the information can be hard to find. You can look to endorsements from organizations like “Right Size Newton” or current elected officials. However, you’re trusting others to vet the candidates, but at least you can listen to those you feel most in synch with. You can count lawn signs and see who your neighbors, known to you or not, support. Unfortunately, we don’t have an involved local paper to critically report on our candidates like the TAB of several years ago under Greg and Gail.
Whether or not you align with Right Size Newton, there’s a philosophy behind it and pro or con, it can be helpful to see who they endorse. But for me, a more interesting question is whether or not our candidates should team up on their own?
What if we had a Blue slate and a Red slate? Starting at the top, who would join with Amy or Ruthanne, for City Council and School Committee? I can imagine that an unopposed candidate might prefer to not commit at all (gutless but safe), but in a contested election this could be really clarifying for the voters.
What do you think of this idea? How would you line up our current slate of candidates for November’s election?
I don’t like it. I dislike the way the councilors are grouped together by signs, endorsements, etc. I think it causes a group think mentality, cliques, and we are seeing it particularly with development. I’m not really excited about any of the councilors because too many see it overly black or white.
I agree with MMQC. The more our town politics gets organized into two permanent opposing teams, the worse off we’ll be.
On a given issue we will tend to have opposing groups of candidates on either side and that’s fine. The more those teams become permanent free floating opponents on all the other issues the more dysfunctional our system is likely to become. Look to Washington for a good example.
If you and I disagree about building Riverside we shouldn’t then line up on opposite sides of swimming in Crystal Lake, or building a bandstand. The if-you’re-for-it-I’m-against-it Washington mentality is a dead end formula.
I agree with Jerry.
Very slightly off-topic: Is there a similar dynamic in other towns around development (or another issue), where candidates get pigeonholed into one or the other camp? Or is it just a Newton thing?
I’m very pleased and honored to have supporters from across the political spectrum throughout the neighborhoods of Newton. I would have no interest in artificially clumping with one mayoral and city council “slate” versus another, even if were possible to identify such slates. The School Committee race is no place for those arbitrary divisions: It’s about the kids.
Perhaps with more candidates (far more than the usual 0 or 1 challengers per seat), the current two-team arrangement would give way to something better.
@ Paul, I’d hope that a candidate for School Committee or any office would be able to take a bolder stand on the different issues vs trying to be all things to all people. What’s for the kids might mean that an incumbent superintendent or someone else has to go. It would be amazing if candidates would actually reveal their views before a vote. Hopefully debates and forums will ask genuinely hard questions vs allowing softball to be the norm.
Being able to get to the election without making stands is one thing. Once you’re there it’s something else. I think there actually is candidate alignment in many ways. The current Mayor and those supporting her are more establishment and status quo. Her challenger may be less so, more open to actual changes. It would be wonderful to see these things clarified before voters go to the polls. Otherwise voter engagement will be low, although this may happen anyway.
This blog does more to divide the citizens of Newton into two camps, with the humble scribe ( pun intended ) Sean Roche at the helm. It ought to take a moment of self reflection before posting an article like this.
It was less so under Greg’s leadership. It’s a sham(e).
Michael may feel it is gutless but I disagree. I would prefer a candidate that can make up their own mind on matters vs have the ‘slate’ or party tell them what to do.
In order to disentangle this cleavage, it might be helpful to determine what prompted me and many others in our city to go all out against the new Charter a few years back. I could never buy into the tortuous argument by proponents that an all at large city council would provide more overall diversity on the City Council. My position and that of many others here was that the all at-large City Council would be tailor made for a single overpowering slate of candidates dominated by those with ready access to wealthy donors, powerful interest groups and individuals, and influential media and advocacy groups of all persuasions outside of Newton.
Additionally, it was also clear the all at-large argument was running counter to so many other municipalities across the nation that were scrambling to scrap their all at large systems for district systems or hybrids like Boston where a few city councilors are elected at large while the majority are elected from pretty clearly defined districts. These electoral changes were promoted to increase diversity in areas where often marginalized voters simply lacked the clout to prevail in at-large voting systems.
The proponents in Newton then tried to modify a strictly at-large formula by requiring that some of the candidates be ward specific even though they would be elected at large. I thought this would only make a bad situation worse by cloaking a centralized system with the veneer of regional or village diversity.
Another tragedy is that this one divisive part of the proposed Charter obscured other parts of the proposal that were on target for reforms the City needed. Even though I thought the effort to end ward representation was deeply flawed, I saw first hand just how much time, thought, work and effort Charter Reform Commission members put into bringing this forward. I never once thought they were acting in anything other than what they were convinced was best for Newton’s future.
I am writing this detail only to recount the source of how and when Newton’s more subtle political divisions finally hardened and engaged voters beyond activists and those that follow developments in Newton with regularity. And yes, it is somewhat unique. I’ve lived here on and off for 85 years and can never remember anything that seemed this deeply divisive. And yes, again to Jerry; the danger that folks will join one side or the other lays the potential that they will wind up endorsing everything the supposed leadership of that side decides is right. I just don’t think that will happen here. Friends who loosely consider themselves to be in one or the other category have sharp differences with others in their supposed group.
The ultimate “winning side” may be one that fully captures the sense of what this city really wants to be and I don’t think either “side” has provided that answer. There’s a real tussle here between deep compassion and generosity and a fear that things we value about Newton may permanently disappear forever, and will do so in our lifetimes.
The slate lawn signs that have sprouted up throughout Newton show divisions may be more apparent than real.
@Keith, that’s ridiculous. Where did I say that a candidate slate would need to agree on everything? I do think that many of our candidates are aligned and that there are groups who see many issues similarly, but how do you know? Our current plethora of candidates are tough to decipher. There needs to be some way to cut through the very heavy fog!
As for Paul Levy, my comment isn’t really just at him. To get elected you need to win with the most votes, and that means alienating as few voters as possible. But once you win, you need to act. I’d like to know where candidates actually stand? Wanting to know where a School Committee candidate stands, about the superintendent, or the NTA matters. In my view it’s clever to say that someone will do what’s best for our kids, but how? I think that the voters deserve to know more. The candidate slate is just one approach. It was used in Cambridge a few years back.
Newton voters will get the quality of government that they demand. If we settle for opaque gobbledygook, we’ll get a government with the same qualities…exactly what we have now under the current Mayor.
This blog entry is obviously motivated as a “vote for Amy” thread. I think a group of candidates running on a ticket is actually gutless. Sure they may not agree on everything, but if they want to get re-elected they may need to do so.
Suppose there is a Right Size slate that is overwhelmingly dominant. Do you think a candidate would want to risk being removed from the ticket and not getting elected if they didn’t tow the line? We need only look at the GOP to see what happens with group think.
I would much rather have candidatess run as individuals than be part of a slate.
Michael – I said you called people that don’t sign up to be part of a slate ‘gutless.’
I then stated I disagreed and then said what I feel about them.
I put no words in your mouth / hand.
Your use of the word ‘gutless’ clearly shows the level of objectivity in your stance.
I’m usually the one that does the research, fortunately (for me) it’s pretty much the same players every other year. I keep a spreadsheet I update as needed.
Imagine having to deal with a full set of contested elections: at least 24 at-large councilor candidates, 2 for ward councilor, 16 for school board, and 2 for mayor. I suppose some people on this blog would think researching 44 candidates is awesome, but not me.
The flip side, is when I’m having an issue who do I contact? I’ve sent letters to specific school board members about a concern I had that they supposedly had too (no response), another time to the whole school board (1 response, polite but dismissive). I’ve written my councilors, and councilors on committees. I’ve gotten back 1 response (my letter was too long to read with the volume of mail they receive. I deleted all the research backing up my position and resent them the headings – they responded that this is what I should have done in the first place)
In my mid there are two interrelated problems: I have to make an informed decision in too many elections (I.e. I have too many people “representing” me) and my representatives are representing too many people to effectively respond to their constituents. Do I give those that responded props for responding, or get upset that they dismissed my concerns and expertise? I ca see why it’s safer to just not respond.
So how does this relate to lawn signs?
After over a decade in Newton, voting in every election, primary, special election, and special election primary, I’ve identified a house. There’s nothing very special about this house, Except They post somewhere from one to a dozen lawn signs depending on the vote. And every time I have done my own research, I have agreed with their signs.
At this point, if I had, after my research, chosen a different candidate, I would go back and take a real close look at that race again.
And once or twice, when work and life and a special needs kid was too much, I just voted their signs on faith.
/As always, this is a personal statement.
@Bob Burke really made sense to me when he said ” the winning side may be the one that captures the sense of what this city wants to be” Nobody seems to be able to answer that question with full confidence and I think it is because it is unclear to them. The high level of anger out there reflects the fears about that question.
I don’t think the candidates match up enough with Ruthanne or Amy to do this. And personally I wouldn’t find it valuable, as it doesn’t take that long to figure out who I want to vote for (although it is much more difficult to give candidates their due when their websites are broken, amazing how quickly online information has become important vs newspaper information).
Also hasn’t this already happened, at least for the “challenger” slate (or incumbents supporting the challenger slate)? I think I see the signs for Oliver/Wright/Getz/Gordon/Riffe/Malakie/Bergman/Waller posted together, and someone included a web link that showed that they offer their supporters the chance to request and support their fellow candidates? Michael Slater, are you just trying to justify the strategy? Not sure of your point here.
I think from a politically practical standpoint, it is very reasonable for folks challenging incumbents to look for solidarity with other new candidates. But it is also no surprise that incumbents don’t have that need, as they have a known name, voting record, and book of supporters. I’d be surprised if Mayor Fuller would ever want to formerly join a slate, as it might alienate folks who would otherwise vote for her. But I think practically Amy and the group of like minded challengers are more linked, there is commonality in being the challenger against the incumbent, and frankly they seem to have similar policies and complaints about the status quo, and similar allies.
I have no objection to any of this. It is why I think the race for mayor will be closer than people think, and why I think the city council races will be close as well.
Mike Leavey, the one thing I’m not sure of is if there is a high level of anger out there in a large enough group of people to sway the election. Surely, online there is. Lots of posters on this forum and others stating how they upset they are about development, schools, Covid, etc. But I’m not seeing this groundswell of anger like in previous elections where you could tell a major change was coming. None of it compares to the anger around Newton North High School (which dispute seems smaller now that some time has passed, but at the time…lots of anger). That isn’t meant to diminish the folks that are very angry, but if you are going to topple incumbents, you need a lot of folks pushing for change, a well-run campaign, and some luck. Thus far, I’m seeing some well-run campaigns, but it is near mid October and I’m not seeing anything near the discussions and angst that even the special election generated. Always possible I’m just missing it, or there are so many challengers that they will carry Amy and all of the at-large challengers to victory.
As I said months ago, I think most voters have short memories. Kids are back at school, the roads are being paved, zoning has been tabled, vaccines are available for Covid, etc. I’m not saying that is fair or right, just that it makes it harder for the challenger to generate enough energy to topple an incumbent.
The debates can certainly change the discussion, so I look forward to those. I’m glad there are three events for the mayor race, I wish there were more for the city councilor races. I hope they all get posted online as well.
Jerry, the week of the election we should have an endorsement thread, and the day of the election a prediction thread.
@fignewtonville – my point is really simple. The people posting on V14 are far more tuned in than most Newton voters. To a “normal” resident, without a newspaper to help clarify candidate’s positions, the large number of candidates is really hard to decipher. You mentioned the group of 8 candidates in your post. Honestly, I haven’t learned enough yet about each to recognize that these are philosophically aligned. I don’t think most other voters know enough yet, either. So for me, obviously a minority of one on this blog, I’d find something like this clarifying and helpful. I think a lot of other Newton voters would, too. That’s why I posted this, whether those who replied above like the idea or not.
Michael:
Fair enough. But I really don’t see why the mayor candidates would want to formally do such a thing. Feels like they’d lose more votes than they’d gain. And then they’d need to work with the folks they opposed either way, at least to some extent.
There will end up being a lot of information for the “normal” resident. But frankly a lot of folks just end up asking their neighbors or friends in Newton for advice. That’s what I did my first few years here. Our system with 24 City councilor, plus school committee, plus mayor makes for a difficult one to jump into, but I don’t think a formal newton slate/party will even happen. Although if it does, I nominate Jerry to name the parties, with one of them having to be named the Fig Party. (or the Wfig Party, take your pick)
@ fig I do like your party names!
I agree that it’s not really in the current Mayor’s interest. Might not hurt, but wouldn’t help. I think she benefits from the lack of clarity. I do think that this could help Amy Sangiolo. As others have noted there’s “a lot” of anger out there. This might help focus it and make the choices for those who share it clearer.
@Anne Avaraldo – I love that you have your own personal “the house” that can be relied on to do your political research when needed. You should stop by, ring their bell and tell them that story. I’m sure they would be delighted to hear.
@ Jerry Reilly – Despite annual block parties for the neighborhood, I have no idea who lives there. Would not recognize them if I was next to them in line. I actually like the mystery. 🙂
I’ve been thinking of dropping a card in their mailbox thanking them on and off for years…
/as always, this is a personal statement.
Democracy ain’t easy. And it should not be. My involvement in political campaigns at the Local and County levels harkens to high school during the 1970s in two States. Campaign signs have existed since and years before. Leaflets and bumper stickers and buttons are nearly a ‘lost art’ with political campaigns. Yet a house’s two or four or eight campaign signs stuck into lawns for certain people running for public office are mere symbols of healthy democracy. Choose one or more or all to vote for. The signs are reminders that choices exist. I’ve seen names new to the Newton political landscape that pushes me to learn more about them.
So, signs are worthy ‘tools’ for voters that point the way towards a certain candidate’s website or Social Media page to decide whether to vote for that certain candidate. The worst part about clusters of campaign signs or banners posted on walls of vacant buildings or stickers on utility poles is that they’re oftentimes not taken down and tossed in the trash for weeks, months, and years. I still see Obama bumper stickers on vehicles riding around Newton.
Keep on keeping on!
I agree Democracy shouldn’t be too easy, but in Newton it is too complex. I’d love to have School Committee members voted by Ward only and lose one of our at-large Ward Councilors, increasing their responsiveness by limiting their scope.
I disagree with the argument that ward elected officials will not be able to see the big picture and will become nimbies.
This would give voters at most 2 school committee members and 18 councilors to choose between if every seat is contested. For a total max of 20 candidates to choose between.
Currently, voters could have 16 school committee members and 34 councilors to choose between if every seat is contested. A total max of 50 candidates to choose between.
It’s crazy.
The lawn sign wars are getting silly but does anyone think mailers are effective? In our house every single mailer gets thrown directly into recycling. I wish all of the candidates would save their money.
I wonder what the average number of contested races are for each election. I personally think that it is important that each School Committee Member be elected by all. They are truly there to represent the district as a whole. I think it is important that each member reside in a different district as hopefully they bring insight ably their local schools into the discussions and decisions but also to try to limit any influence from one area of the city. It’s bad enough that there are only two contested races but if the rule were only people living in a particular ward could vote and you lived in a ward without a contested race you could have no impact on who serves on that committee. That would be beyond frustrating especially in a year like this past one. I’m excited about some new candidates and what they could bring to the table and though some existing members do not have any competition I still will not give them a vote. I am glad that I have the option to vote for all.
As far as slates.,,I hate the idea in some ways when it leads to people blindly voting for someone but I also get it is probably helpful for challengers to band together and share some resources/networks of contacts etc.
Retail still works the best. Andreae Downs stopped by the house today for an informed, no BS conversation. We’re lucky to have her.
If you outsource your vote to a slate and abdicate your responsibility
to be informed, then you get the neighborhoods, schools, streets, parks and government that you deserve.
It’s as simple as that.
Your question was answered affirmatively today at the Harvest Fair. Candidates on both sides used shared “slate booths”.
Yes, I got a mailer from Councilors Oliver and Lucas, telling me to “take them into the voting booth” and actually advertising a slate. Same slate as Save Nonantum.
I miss the days when city councilors endorsed, but didn’t actively campaign against each other. Or maybe I just wasn’t paying enough attention to see it.
@PaulGreen. Curious… How close are you going to vote to the RightSizeNewton slate? Where do you cross over?
Well, the RightSizeNewton slate is the Save Nonantum slate, and the Vibrant Newton slate is the Engine 6 slate is the Newton Against Gun Violence Slate. There are basically two slates. The only person I’ve seen leave someone off a slate is Marc Laredo, from my recollection.
I don’t consider myself a slate person, but one decision tends to lead you in the same direction for another, and so on. With that said, I don’t believe either slate will be 100% successful. My guess is that the ward votes will move independently of the slates.
@Fig – Not true. Save Nonantum only endorsed Ward 1 CC candidates and Rightsize Newton didn’t endorse the same ones.
You are correct about the Engine 6 and Vibrant Newton and Newton Against Gun slate. They are all identical.
Lisa, I stand corrected. For the record, they all had common endorsements where they endorsed, but Rightsize didn’t endorse anyone but John Oliver in Ward 1 at large. And Save Nonantum endorsed as you say. I wonder why they differed?
I’m also sure there is a reason why Marc Laredo isn’t endorsing Deb Waller. I was a bit surprised. Maybe he doesn’t find the parking emergency as dire as she does.
Fig – Also, for the record, Marc endorsed only Paul Levy for SC (which after hearing those debates makes a lot sense to me).
I was only really considering city council slates in my comment Lisa, but happy to have that additional information.
Also, for the record I thought the Oliver/Lucas mailer was funny, especially the picture they used. Considering I circular file all of those mailers, the fact that I actually read it means it was well done!
I have to say though, the special election feels very far in the past to me.
I actually thought the Oliver/Lucas photo was adorable (but I really like both of them – a lot).
TMI, I am sure!
@fig is it my imagination, or was it the custom only a few years ago that a sitting councilor would not even endorse a challenger against another sitting councilor?
@Adam
I am not quite @fig, but you are correct.
I don’t know the logic behind it, but it never made any sense to me.
That said, I do know alliances have been made in my ward. Danberg, Bowman, and Noel apparently formed an alliance.
Candidate “slates” are as old as democracy. Why do campaigns and endorsing organizations still us them? Probably because they still work, and work well.
@fig, perhaps you weren’t paying attention. I have been both the target and the instigator of campaigns against incumbents by fellow colleagues. It happens all the time, although sometime it is more sotto voce (read, passive aggressive). I prefer a campaign where incumbents are forthright and candid about the other candidates with whom they would prefer to serve. But maybe that’s just me.
Sooo…I was driving through West Newton/Auburndale this morning to head to Market Basket. (It was a zoo. I haven’t been on a Saturday morning in a long time and it was not fun. But I did get my sweet MB deals) I was observing the signs in Newton and I don’t think these “slates” are as common as it seems based off discussions here and on Facebook. I saw lots of mixing and matching of signs on my route. I also will be voting for candidates in both “slates.” I’m curious to see the results in a few days, but I think we’ll end up with a hodgepodge, whether it’s my chosen candidates or not.