Finally, the West Windsor mayoral election is over. The incumbent mayor won with 3,748 votes out of 7,711 votes cast. Per Wikipedia, the estimated population of the town in 2012 was 28,193, of which about 28.4 percent were under the age of 18. So the voting age population is about 20,186. That means only 38.2 percent of the total voting population voted, and the mayor won with only 18.6 percent of the total voting population. Both are low numbers indeed.
We should also remember that the proportionality rule does not apply here because those who voted are not necessarily a representative sample of the total population. It is fair to assume that there is a block of voters, estimated to be about 15 percent, who are loyal to the mayor and will vote for him regardless of what he does. They can be categorized as “some of the people who can be fooled all the time.” (These are probably the same block of voters who voted along the column and helped elect some new councilmen. Faith often has a direct relationship with blindness and an inverse relationship with intelligence).
So the mayor has to take care of, address or pander to only about 4 percent of voters to get elected year after year. No wonder the town is dysfunctional and vested interest wins the day. Is this really democracy? Is this what the Greeks envisioned or our forefathers intended or for that matter anybody wanted? This should insult our conscience if not our intelligence. The system is broken. We are making fools of ourselves. I am not sure who is the bigger fool here, the 38.2 percent who voted, the 61.8 percent who did not care, or the 15 percent who did not care in a different way. One thing is clear: the mayor is no fool. He is milking the cow as long as he can.
It was amusing to read showering praises for Hsueh, Marathe or Visovsky in this and other papers as if us uneducated people do not live here and cannot make up our mind on our own. Being unaware that praise, by its very nature, is less objective and less effective than criticism, if they spent some of their effort in getting their fellow residents to the voting booth, we could have a more valid result and less mockery.
One way to encourage voting is to offer a small but definite amount of discount in property tax to those who vote and surcharge to those who don’t. Since money talks, that may do the trick. If the current voting rate continues the town will make some money. If everybody votes the town may lose some money, but it is worth the validity of the result it will offer.
Another approach would be to ask each voter to select candidates in order of priority. A voter can reject all the candidates but cannot refrain from voting. For example if candidate A is the first choice of 30 percent of voters and the second choice of another 30 percent, whereas candidate B is first choice of 40 percent of voters but the second choice of none, then candidate A should be elected because of broad appeal. This method would make the voting result calculation a little more complicated, but with today’s computing power that should not be a problem. This would force the candidates to address and satisfy all the voters, not select block of voters — a real empowerment for all voters.
The point, however, is not whether these approaches are the best. The point is that we need vigorous discussion and debate on how to improve voter turnout and thereby the validity of the result. Otherwise, the process becomes a sham. We might as well toss a coin. Surprisingly, such discussion is hardly present. If we don’t get such discussion in West Windsor, a relatively affluent and highly educated town, where would we get it? Instead what we have is chatter about ballot format and column alignment. How petty can it be? Is this pettiness, donut hole stupidity, misguided priority, or intentional misguiding?
Unfortunately, the prognosis is not good. If you can get elected by pandering to only a small percentage of voters year after year, what is the incentive for those in power or the politicians to improve the system? Most of the residents, between their son’s dance classes, daughter’s soccer, nagging spouse, and demanding boss, cannot find enough disposable time to stamp the ballot once every four years. It is a stretch to expect them to demand or discuss better process. So the vicious cycle goes on every November fool’s day.
Pat Banerjee
Greenfield Drive, Princeton Junction
