They're ba-a-a-a-ack... maybe.
The following resolution sponsored by 4th Ward Councilman Ruben Ramos and co-sponsored by 1st Ward Councilman Mike DeFusco is up for First Reading at this Wednesday's Council meeting:
The City Council of the City of Hoboken requests that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:45-21(b) that the City Clerk provide for the submission upon the official election ballot to be used at the November 6, 2018 General Election the following proposition:
How do you feel about that, people?
Do you support bringing back run-offs?
During the race, Ramos was overheard expressing unhappiness that Hoboken had eliminated runoffs. Lo and behold (and thank G-d), his worst fear came to pass; his candidate finished second.
Ramos' candidate, Mike DeFusco, defied expectations.
Mike DeFusco started out with very low name recognition, but finished stronger than expected on the machines, and weaker than expected on VBMs. Still, overall he finished a strong second place. Strong enough to blame unverifiable x,y,z factors on losing.
Had there been run-offs, it would have been Bhalla v DeFusco.
But, if there had been run-offs, GA also believes all the candidates would have run a different race. Different tactics. All of the campaigns.
And different campaign tactics may have yielded different results. With a run-off election, that might have moderated the tone between reform factions instead of scorched earth. But without a run-off, the sense of urgency that anyone could win with the tiniest of margins reduced this race to a slug-fest.
GA's got mixed feelings on run-off elections.
Obviously, runoffs favor the candidates with access to money and/or outside interests like IEs. It makes it much harder for Independent candidates to compete, in effectively 2 races. And, runoffs cost Hoboken taxpayers more loot.
However, there's an irrefutable downside to "winner take all" elections.
No runoffs allows election-tampering (stuffing the field with spoilers) to effect the outcome. Yes, monied interests or a political machine can put up any amount of candidates to split the vote, so that their guy/gal gets in. And winning without a (substantial) plurality of the electorate is just not great; who wants a mayor who won with 12%?
So, if the Ramos Resolution eventually passes, it will be in effect for the next mayoral in 2021.
The question is, will there be a Councilman DeFusco in 2019? Will Ramos decide to run in 2021? Who knows.
You are forgetting if they go back to runoffs, they don't have to try half as hard to farm votes in the general election and they can save the real effort for the runoff. Just imagine what would have happened had Mike just aimed for a firm second place and then gotten the vote farming machine going in the run off. He'd likely be the mayor-elect right now.
ReplyDeleteBTW, theory here. The idiots who backed Jen probably like this idea b/c it would have screwed over Ravi - and only for that reason.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe decision to eliminate the runoff was made in a high turnout election which in my opinion is the wat decisions of this magnitude should be made. Almost 16,000 people voted with about 9200 people voting to eliminate the runoff.
ReplyDeleteCouncilman DeFusco doesn't want to ask 16,000 voters to reconsider. He wants to run this into an election with preftt much nothing else on the ballot so the fewest number of people participate in the decision making.
In 2014 and 2018, the last 2 elections with nothing much on the ballot, fewer than 9000 voted total. Fewer people voted altogether than the number who voted yes to eliminating the run-off in 2012.
If we really want to make sure Hoboken voters think this is a good idea, there's no reason not to wait until 202o so the decision could be made with as many voters participating as possible.
The decision would still be effective in time for the 2021 mayoral race. And by then maybe instant runoffs will have been legalized in NJ and voters will have a win/ win choice available instead if having to choose between two flawed alternatives.
That's 2010 and 2014. Sorry. We can reasonably project the same tiny turnout - about 40% less than this year, for 2018. We could also expect a similarly tiny turnout for a December runoff. An instant runoff should the state decide to permit it would make sense. A second election 30 days later with a far fewer voters participating does not - at least it does not unless you think elections should cost more and be decided by fewer people after a round if back room deal making among the candidates.
DeleteA few thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. This proposal definitely helps incumbents and anyone with access to money. Running a second election a month later likely adds another $100k minimum to the tab based on the cost of this past election. As a general matter, the more we can get money out of politics, the better. I’m actually for public financing of campaigns and/or campaign spending limits though I know the current US Supreme Court would find the latter unconstitutional;
2. I think the higher cost of elections which is a 100% certainty under this proposal, would also increase the chances of corruption to fund higher costing campaigns. Mayors Russo and Cammarano are prime examples here;
2. Based on the 2005 and 2009 Mayoral elections, the idea that people will be more polite when there is a runoff does not track with past history. The runoffs led to nastier tactics at the end and more scorch earthed campaigning, not less; and
3. Don’t know if people remember the debate when voters very recently eliminated runoffs, but the point that resonated the most with me is that in Hoboken’s history, the runoff never changed the outcome of the first election. In other words the runoffs were a major waste of public time and money.
I’m interested in ranked choice or instant runoffs but don’t know enough about them to form a cogent opinion. For now, based on past experience, I am very happy that we do not have to live through a second election, though I acknowledge the current system has the flaw, common btw to all parliamentary democracies in Europe, that the chief executive enters office not with a majority of votes, but the most votes.
This will come with a breathless sermon on democracy, delivered by the people who are most frightened by true democracy but figure they know a way around it.
ReplyDelete