This year’s Mayor and Town Council election in West Windsor was one for the history books. While incumbent Mayor Shing-Fu Hsueh won re-election over opponents Hemant Marathe and Rick Visovsky, his running mates, Kamal Khanna and Eric Payne, did not win seats on the council. Instead, Marathe’s running mates, Linda Geevers and Peter Mendonez, won the council election. Visovsky and running mates Martin Whitfield and Debra Hepler placed third in both elections.
Reactions at both the Marathe and Hsueh after-election parties were mixed, as the numbers were reported to both teams. At times, people shook their heads and wondered if there had been a mistake in how then numbers had been tallied, because the results were so unusual. But, in the end, both teams finally agreed on one thing: The results of the election were most likely due to the way the ballot was configured this year.
The ballots for local candidates were quite confusing, because the mayoral candidates were not aligned with their council running mates (see story at right). Hsueh was listed first, but his running mates were not listed beneath him; instead, Geevers and Mendonez were. Likewise, Visovsky was listed second, and Khanna and Payne fell beneath him; and Marathe had the final slot on the line for mayor, with Whitfield and Hepler placed beneath his name.
The results were as follows. For mayor: Hsueh (incumbent) 3,257, Marathe 2,778, Visovsky 684.
For council: Geevers (incumbent) 3,011, Mendonez 2,556; Khanna (incumbent) 2,353, Payne 2,386; Hepler 1,198, Whitfield 1,106.
At one point during the evening, as the results were coming in, Geevers noted, “Both teams [Marathe and Hsueh] did a good job trying to explain the ballot to potential voters. We all really tried. There wasn’t much more that we could have done.”
While giving his victory speech, Hsueh also commented on the results. “This victory is truly bittersweet for me. While I am very grateful to have won, I feel terrible about the fact that my running mates did not. But we will continue to move forward together.”
“And, there is something else I want to say,” he added. “People have asked me about my relationship with Hemant after this election. We are friends, we respect each other, and have always worked well together. That will not change. I will continue to have a positive relationship with Hemant, and with his running mates Linda and Peter. We all work for the town and the residents.”
The fact that there were three complete tickets running for mayor and council this year certainly added to the mix. The Visovsky slate, which announced its candidacy before either of the other two slates, certainly was one factor in the final outcome. The last time a “third party” candidate competed in West Windsor, the impact was slight. In 2009 Pete Weale received just 175 votes, making only a small dent in Hsueh’s 2,266-vote margin over challenger Charlie Morgan. Visovsky’s 684 votes in this year’s election exceeded Hsueh’s margin over Marathe in the unofficial vote totals (mail-in ballots may change the final margins).
Having to figure out three different sets of running mates, instead of the traditional two, most likely added to voter confusion. In addition, the votes received by Visovsky, Whitfield, and Hepler were votes that potentially could have gone to Marathe, Khanna and Payne, changing the outcome for any of them. Nonetheless, the fact that Hepler and Whitfield received twice as many votes as their slate’s mayoral candidate, Visovsky, tends to show that voter confusion over the ballot had some significant impact on the results of this election.
On top of all that, Geevers appearing below Hsueh on the ballot may have further added to the confusion. Just two elections ago, Geevers was part of the Hsueh slate.
All three campaign teams were very vocal and visible in the weeks leading up to the election, and all three spent a large amount of time and energy trying to get their respective messages across, using a variety of media: tried-and-true campaign activities, such as door-to-door visits, political signs, letters to the editor, and mailers, as well as new communications vehicles, notably campaign websites and Facebook pages. At times communications methods became the news, rather than the actual messages.
For example, controversy erupted over campaign signs. The first complaint was the placement of the signs on public property rather than individual homeowners’ lawns; all three teams did this. The Marathe team complained about the size of the some of the Hsueh team’s signs; then it turned around and put up larger signs itself. Finally, all three campaigns complained about the theft of many of their signs, many of which turned up in the Assunpink Creek in Upper Freehold Township. So prevalent was the theft of campaign signs that the Hsueh team warned it had installed motion-detection cameras on some of its signs to catch the perpetrators.
Door-to-door conversations, as well appearances at local events, still played an important role in the candidates’ quest to garner voter support. And the candidates were proud of their efforts — pictures of each of them at cultural gatherings, school activities, and other events appeared in campaign literature and on Facebook pages. In fact, at one point during the debates, virtually every candidate mentioned how many homes he or she had visited during the election season. “All told, I think we visited 5,000 homes,” Marathe said.
Money was also spent on glossy campaign mailers, particularly by the Hsueh and Marathe teams. The closer it got to November 5, the more mailers appeared. A huge mailer, considered by the Hsueh team to be its “piece de resistance,” was received by residents the day before the election.
Along with the more traditional methods of campaigning, all three teams went “high-tech,” embracing websites and Facebook to get their messages across to voters. Even during the one “official” debate, held on October 29, the candidates were asked how they would best communicate with residents.
But, at the end of the day, all of the campaigning, posting on facebook, walking door-to-door, and arguing over signs and mailers could not overcome the placement of names on the ballot.
