Tonight is the 2nd Reading of an ordinance to re-institute run-off elections in Hoboken. GA figures it will pass. Here was the vote on First Reading:
"The election change ordinance, it is a lot more complicated issue than it's sponsors have fully considered. Other than cheap political points. But I'm not sure I oppose it, so I abstained while I consider it further."Fair enough. Whatever Doyle decides, it will be arrived at honestly.
But, in Hoboken's post-election "New World Order," some formerly-reform Councilpersons appear to legislate according to "whatever it is (Zimmer/Bhalla support), I'm against it."
Case in point, the 2012 drive to eliminate run-off elections.
That grassroots movement was the brainchild of activist Eric Kurta and others, including Dave Denning. There was even a political committee named "Vote Yes for November".
The committee held fundraisers, raising almost $4,000, mainly in small contributions.
The "Vote Yes for Less" petition drive to put the referendum on the ballot got over 1,800 signatures.
Hoboken residents may remember that Jen Giattino and Peter Cunningham both collected signatures for this petition drive. That fact has been confirmed by yours truly.
Yes, both 5th and 6th Ward Councilpersons were active participants in the grassroots effort to eliminate run-offs.
That was then, folks.
There is a good reason why this ordinance is a Dark Side dream.
One only has to look at Jersey City's Run-off election to see proof of the precipitous drop in turnout for run-off elections. Ward E's sure-to-win Rebecca Symes got creamed by James Solomon when her vote dropped by 40% from the General.
This means it's a steeper climb for Hoboken candidates who rely on machine votes, not VBM harvests. The Dark Side historically does whatever they can to reduce voter turnout, including running spoilers, so they can ride into office on a tide of bought-absentee votes.
Looks like they have "help" now.
Hey Eric on the Farm, can you believe this?
The old guard and corrupt developers got behind DeFiasco but failed to get him in so they could continue using the city as their ATM the way they used to. Now they know they need the runoff back to make it work. Mikey may not be their guy in the next mayoral race, if he's even still in town, but it won't matter because they'll have a new pawn star by then.
ReplyDeleteThe voters decided this issue pretty decisively in 2012. The real issue we should be considering is not just whether having a December runoff is good or bad (I think it's bad). Its whether we should be allowing the 2012 losers on this issue to have a do over in 2018, especially given that the 2012 vote wasn't remotely close (about 60/40). They're trying to push this through at the last meeting of the year with no one watching because they don't want to answer that question.
ReplyDeleteWhile Kurt Gardiner is writing exciting stories about the "race" for sewerage authority and Roman Brice is patting himself on the back over and over again for getting everything wrong about the reported Garcia settlement, the silence on this issue from them is deafening. They both strongly supported for eliminating the runoff in 2012 (Kurt collected petition signatures). Their silence now says everything you need to know about the desire of a certain political faction to do this below the radar.
Nothing has changed since 2012 to justify going back to the voters on an issue they already decided just a few years ago. If and when instant run-offs become legal there will be a new decision to make but this is simply a bunch of sore losers wanting to change the rules because they lost.
I am firmly convinced some people are so filled with spite over Ravi winning, they'd rather completely screw up things in Hoboken to the point where the OG/developer lobby are back in charge next election cycle. Complete stupidity and absolutely childish.
DeleteI guess handing the city back to the old guard via runoff is not one of the things the "resistance" is resisting.
ReplyDeleteThey also don't seem very keen on giving more of an explanation for removing Assourdian from the NHSA than sore loser syndrome. Which means appointments will once again be based on who is friends with whom rather than qualifications.
It seems that the only thing the "resistance" is resisting is getting over losing.
The only thing the resistance is resisting is common sense.
DeleteI think it is fair to reconsider this resolution now in 2018. I for one supported (and voted for it) in 2012. Not sure it was a good idea looking back. The theory always was that there would be higher turnout in November than in May/June.
ReplyDeleteThe problem first initiated in 2009 when there were several elections in a row in just a few months. It was hard to turn out voters and the threat was that a small block of reliable voters (or voters provided incentives) made it difficult.
That said, they eliminated the runoff at the time as it was thought to be too difficult to turn out voters for a December election. I don't see how that wouldn't still be true. So this may be the right idea, but the wrong dates.
Would it not have made more sense in 2017 to have held the first elections on primary day in June with a runoff in November?
We have only the choices legally on the menu so it doesn't really matter whether having the runoff in November with an earlier first round would make sense - its not an available choice. Can you explain why, other than your preferred candidate losing, you are no longer sure it was a good idea "looking back" without referring to alternatives that do not exist?
ReplyDeleteThe higher turnout in November hasn't proved to be a theory - it has been proven to be fact.
Over 15,000 people voted for mayor this past November, a huge turnout that clearly validates the decision to move the election to November, if you think (as I do) that having more voters participate is better. In a December runoff we'd be lucky to get out 10,000 voters. That doesn't seem like a "better" system unless you believe in having the smallest possible voter base choose our mayor, with bought and paid for VBM's representing 10% of the vote. The voters fully understood this in 2012. They also understood that without a runoff, the winner in a 4 way race would probably get far less than 50% of the vote. When Mike DeFusco says the voters just didn't understand this, he is calling them stupid. They are not.
Perhaps more importantly, though, there is simply no excuse for doing this at the last council meeting of the year, immediately after the election, when we have until August 2018 to decide. That is the opposite of transparency" and the opposite of "reform." If this passes tonight those who have proclaimed that "reform" in Hoboken is dead will have demonstrated their commitment to killing it.
so...what happened with the vote last night?
ReplyDeletePractice saying mayor DeFusco.
DeleteWell yesterday was an ostensible battle victory of Michael/BigMoneyDevelopers in a longer war to go back to the old days of free reign development paid for by developers as was the case in the Russo, Roberts years. This still of course has to pass in November.
DeleteI think it's an important -- high-stakes --- opportunity to educate voters about how much run-offs favor incumbents and anyone who can raise money from developers and unions like Michael or can self-fund like Beth. Michael has pretty much knocked off Jen or Tiff from ever being competitive in an election again if this passes. Of course they were never competitive anyway I guess. If you thought this past cycle was expensive, watch what happens when we have a run-off. I hope these campaigns will pay for winter coats if this passes.
Let's not forget that in a run-off election the VBMs take an even greater significance.
Developer paying big money in the run-offs, VBMs taking greater significance. What's not to like for the dark side. Congratulations to Peter, Tiff, Jen on joining them.
It passed 7-2. Doyle and Bhalla against.
ReplyDeleteNah. Mike probably won't even be a councilman come 2019. Mayor Russo or Mayor Ramos are more likely than Mayor DeFusco
ReplyDeleteUnless this sails under the radar in 2018 as the 7 council members clearly hope it will, I expect that the voters will re-affirm their 2012 decision and reject this.
Pretty much nobody in Hoboken except the 7 Councilpeople who voted for this thinks that another month of mailbox stuffing and canvassers knocking on their doors would have been better.
Most voters, no matter who they voted for, aren't angry about Ravi winning, Only the losers are.
My understanding is that this passed with no discussion whatsoever, so for now, the plan for stealth passage of this has succeeded.
Will Tiffanie, Jen and Peter succeed in never having to explain their reasons for joining with the dark side on this? Lets hope not. I guess time will tell.
Anyone who voted to change to a runoff format is basically handing the city back over to whichever mayoral candidate buys the most votes with street money. This really was a dumb move and was done purely b/c Jen got her ass handed to her in the most humiliating way possible. It really is a shame that spite is motivating those folks and I will tell you right now, the only way Peter gets my vote next cycle is if he is running against a pedophile.
DeleteRusso and Ramos can't get that half-listening cross-over vote. What Sara, who is always attracted to this type of candidate (Occhipinti, Defusco, whoever is next) calls "the yuppie vote." I'm not saying we'll get an ethicist. I'm saying we'll get a dependably shifty non-BNR.
DeleteOrdinance should read as follows
ReplyDeleteSECTION ONE:
SHALL RUN-OFF ELECTIONS BE ALLOWED IN THE CITY OF HOBOKEN AS PERMITTED BY THE "UNIFORM NON-PARTISAN ELECTIONS LAW", FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING INCOMPETENT, CORRUPT CANDIDATES, ENABLING THEM TO RAID THE CITY'S COFFERS AND CONTINUE THEIR PATRONAGE MILL AS THEY ONCE DID?