Greetings Freeport,
I'm in little shape to write at the moment, as I've had quite a long, long day. And yesterday. So, here's my best, "post-then-pass-out" shot:
A semi-live tally was provided by the Unity/Home-Rule Party, indicating the results of the election. The banner in question has shifted to "Freeport is Free!," implying a victory! They've provided a finalized tally which reads as follows:
Freeport Mayor
Andrew Hardwick: 3882 Votes
Robert Kennedy: 4397 Votes (Winner)
Freeport Trustee (Top-Two)
James Caracciolo: 3,579
Annette Dennis: 3,601
Ronald Ellerbe: 4,469 (Winner)
Carmen Pinyero: 4,526 (Winner)
Freeport Judge
Roy Cacciatore: 4,151 (Winner)
Stephen Drummond: 3,931
Results Matter
Assuming these numbers are unchallenged (they seem fairly decisive in that Mr. Kennedy has a 500-vote margin according to them), and are legitimate, well, Freeport has chosen. All listed winners are from the Unity/Home-Rule Party. It's late. I'm sleepy. I could sit back and assess the strengths and weaknesses of each campaign and what led it to where it is, today, but I'm sleepy.
I know I'm not your first source of news on this (I'm reacting to news, myself!), but I figured I should put forth the numbers I've seen and make sure they check out. If they do? Well, I want to congratulate the winners, and I want to thank those who lost for their efforts. Being part of this process is hard - and most of all, I want to thank you, the voter. I will admit, if you add the mayoral votes together you get 8,279. That's a pretty huge turnout for Freeport; in a town of 45,000 people, well, we had nearly 20% of the community vote! That's better than in most recent elections, but it's still pretty low if you ask me, and it's one of the things that our next mayor will have to work on in the next four years - bringing power to this process known as "Democracy," lest it be stripped away from us.
Oh. And I'll come up with some other inanely-rambled "things Mayor (Whoever but probably Kennedy) must do in the next four years" to fill up an article soon.
Farewell, Freeport, and goodnight!
Hey if it makes you feel better you were actually my first source of news on the results of the election. I use this site so I don't have to scour through web pages or newspapers to get the most direct news of the freeport election I knew would be there upon first glance.
ReplyDeletePaul,
DeleteI know I'm a bit late on the response, but a message like this sort of deserved one. Thank you. I really appreciate what you're saying, and your support. It's what helps keep this project going!
My warmest regards,
--Jesse Pohlman
This is my first time "checking you out" but it won't be my last. Let's see where it goes from here.
ReplyDeleteYou can't use a 45,000 number you just can't. As per Census estimates as of 2011 there is 43,016. Of that there are 23.4% of that number who can't vote because they are under the age of 18. Additionally, you have to take off the percentage of those that are not eleigible to vote because they are not U.S. Citizens. The Census shows two figures 41% of Hispanic Origin and 35% not born in the U.S. If you take the lower of the two and factor in some are children you have to decrease the voter pool even more. So, while the voter turnout in the Election is by far one of the biggest (more than 2,000 than the previous Mayoral election) it still could be better. You need to adjust your numbers though before you go with your logic. The voter turnout is still lower than the national average (2010 election 51%-can't use a Presidential to be honest) it is probably more closer to 35-40%
ReplyDeleteSo your argument is that I'm rounding up. Okay, that's a fair criticism, it does skew the numbers a bit, so I can accept that. And those being under the age of 18? I would have guessed those aren't counted as "residents," but that is also a fair critique. So far, so good!
DeleteWhere you lose me is the "not US Citizens" and "not born in US," thus not eligible to vote bit. The reason I don't accept that as an answer is as follows: If they live here, why can't they vote here? No, that doesn't mean automatic voting for all/a statement on immigration policy, it means "Why can't they?" Are they not registered? (Well, that's their fault, I guess.) Are they not eligible? If not, why are they counted as residents? Wouldn't that fall under a separate category? And even if it isn't a separate category, as "residents" does that not confer certain benefits, at least locally, even for non-citizens?
Once you're outside of federal election mandates (I.E. voting in national elections), states all have different policies on how they handle the process, and who can vote in what elections. In some states, as long as you are a legal resident you may register to vote in local elections, even if you don't have standing to vote in federal ones. I could also be wrong about any of that, since I haven't recently refreshed my memory on election law. I certainly am not an election lawyer in New York.
Nor am I a lawyer on citizenship and census-taking. I would finally imagine that illegally-present persons wouldn't get marked on the census to begin with. I certainly can assume that even if they are counted, many would evade the census as a whole. And, while I could argue immigration policy, and would refer you to my favorite publication, "The Economist," this isn't the venue for that.
My underlying point, however, is pretty much reinforced by your generalized argument. Let's even assume your high-end number, 40%, for the sake of it. That means that of all eligible voters, 40% showed up. 40% of those capable of choosing a government did so. WTF happened to the other 60%, again? Is that not, still, an atrocious turn-out, even if it is high in relation to recent elections?
And, even if you throw out so many residents as unable to have a choice over that government, doesn't it -further- enhance the underlying idea that there is something very wrong when people cannot, or do not choose to influence their own governance?
I am not leaving the mayors chair. They'll have to drag me out.
ReplyDeletePlease note that I have extremely serious doubts about whether or not this is actually Mayor Hardwick speaking. A 2013-registered Blogspot account? No trace of similar comments on far more relevant social media? Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and say, "prove to me that you're you" before I even begin to respond seriously to this.
DeleteYou are too smart Jesse !!!!! Dang....
ReplyDeleteI think you should shorten your material and try to do it more often. I know you like to write but it probably is too time consuming with the longer posts. You could do shorter, more frequent stuff and it would be appreciated. Dont be a douche either, this is a compliment... not a criticism.
ReplyDeleteNo plans on being a douche, and you aren't wrong. The main issue I have with doing shorter-and-more-frequent articles is simple: There's not much to say! Either an issue is incredibly mundane and doesn't really need me to discuss it, or it's complicated and it needs to be addressed in full.
DeleteWhen I do have "shorter" material, it tends to get wrapped up into multi-section posts about many topics. But that's rare, these days. :/