posted by Mike Madison at 8:41 AM /
As a non-native, I've been mystified for years by local political practices. The obsession with party-based slates of candidates and slates of candidates in general is a special oddity, and it never annoys me more than during local races.
The current Mt. Lebanon School Board election features Mary D. Birks, running on her own; Jo Posti and Rob Gardner, running together, and Remely, Silhol, Boyle, and Ostergaard, running as a group. (I'm reminded here of the human "centipede," which is a term in road racing for a group of 13 runners who run together -- while tied together.)
Of course, I can vote for whatever candidates I want to support. But it is difficult to publicly support only the candidates I want to support. If I want to put up a yard sign for Posti, I can't; I can only put up a yard sign for Posti and Gardner. If I want to put up a yard sign for Ostergaard, I can't; I can only put up a yard sign for Ostergaard, Remely, Silhol, and Boyle. If I want to put up a yard sign for Remely but communicate the message that "I'm not a Republican and don't care whether or not he is," I can't do that; Remely is part of the "R Team."
And if it were up to me, I'd ban campaigning within 100 yards of a polling place. Getting pestered with pamphlets and voting cards while I'm walking in to vote gives me the creeps.
None of this justifies not voting. I will definitely vote. And so should you. May 19!
The current Mt. Lebanon School Board election features Mary D. Birks, running on her own; Jo Posti and Rob Gardner, running together, and Remely, Silhol, Boyle, and Ostergaard, running as a group. (I'm reminded here of the human "centipede," which is a term in road racing for a group of 13 runners who run together -- while tied together.)
Of course, I can vote for whatever candidates I want to support. But it is difficult to publicly support only the candidates I want to support. If I want to put up a yard sign for Posti, I can't; I can only put up a yard sign for Posti and Gardner. If I want to put up a yard sign for Ostergaard, I can't; I can only put up a yard sign for Ostergaard, Remely, Silhol, and Boyle. If I want to put up a yard sign for Remely but communicate the message that "I'm not a Republican and don't care whether or not he is," I can't do that; Remely is part of the "R Team."
And if it were up to me, I'd ban campaigning within 100 yards of a polling place. Getting pestered with pamphlets and voting cards while I'm walking in to vote gives me the creeps.
None of this justifies not voting. I will definitely vote. And so should you. May 19!
9 Comments:
Another practice I was not aware of prior to moving here many years ago is "plunking" when voting...most everyone seems to be familiar with and some intentionally practice it.
I hear the *questionnaire* gang of backers are planning to employ it in May.
"Plunking," as I understand it, is the practice of voting in a multi-candidate election for fewer than the maximum number of candidates that the voter is allowed to vote for.
So, in a race for 3 seats with 5 candidates all in the same pool, a voter could vote only for 1 or 2 candidates rather for the maximum permitted, which would be 3. The effect is to maximize the impact of that voter's preference and to dilute the impact of votes cast by voters who vote for a full slate of 3.
Is there something that would prohibit putting up a sign of your own devising? Other than the time and cost of the materials, I mean. Political signage / personal endorsement signage is not subject to any sort of legal approval, is it?
I think the cross-registration, and more recently the bundling behavior, is just an artifact of Pennsylvania's laws on voting within one's party during the primary election.
Cross-registration essentially makes the top vote-getters in the primary become no-contest candidates come fall. So roping yourself to an incumbent, or a platform, generates better numbers and likelier success for the new blood in the bundle than by going it alone. In my experience, events like Sablegate notwithstanding, the set of incumbents tend to get more votes over the set of newcomers.
I don't see how this makes plunking a viable strategy - it reduces the overall votes going to the undesired candidate, but it's still a run off, thus it essentially hands over the decision for the last nth candidates to the remaining voters' behavior.
Unfortunately without a repeal of the party restrictions on primaries, we won't have an incentive for single-registration candidacy or independent candidacy.
There's nothing wrong with "plunking" as described. You can even show up at the poll and get your receipt without voting for anyone.
This is a technique commonly used by the silent majority who want that free cup of coffee at Eat 'n Park.
The main problem I see is, there aren't enough candidates who want the four seats up for election.
It's not a legal point; it's simply an observation about campaign behavior. I can make and display my own signs. From both my point of view and the candidate's point of view, though, the message is somewhat different.
I often have the same frustration with the endorsement of candidates by a political party. Too often, the party endorsement rules the day as folks try to determine how best to select a candidate. As a lawyer, this is particularly troubling in the judicial races. There is very little information on which non-lawyers can base their decision to select one judicial candidate over another, so voters tend to rely heavily on endorsements. Since the Republicans do not endorse judicial candidates, the Democrats' endorsement is often viewed as authoritative. However, I would encourage voters to examine the ratings of the the Allegheny County Bar Association's Judiciary Committee in making their decision - primarily because the Judiciary Committee examines candidates strictly on their merit, without reference to political affiliation or activity. After all, justice should be non-partisan.
The Judiciary Committee is a group of 24 lawyers independently elected by the 6,500 members of the Bar Association. The Judiciary Committee is charged by the Bar Association with evaluating all candidates for local, appellate, and federal courts who reside in Allegheny County. Each candidate is evaluated in the areas of temperament, experience in the field of law, academic achievement, honesty and integrity, reputation, general community interest and contributions to the profession.
The ratings are intended to be a helpful guide for voters, because without them most voters would have little if any information on which to base an educated vote for judge. Stated more simply, the lawyers of Allegheny County, who will practice in front of these judges every day, have created a non-partisan system to help voters identify who is suited to sit as a judge. Since the candidates for the Court of Common Pleas usually cross-file, this non-partisan endorsement is a valuable resource for all voters who are interested in placing the most qualified individuals (regardless of party affiliation) on the Bench.
Notably, the Allegheny Democratic Committee has endorsed a slate of candidates for the Court of Common Pleas that differs somewhat from the recommendations made by the Judiciary Committee. In doing so, the Democrats have encouraged the members of their party to disregard 3 incredibly qualified and well-respected candidates (Alex Bicket, Phil Ignelzi and Hugh McGough), despite the fact that all of them are Democrats and all of them received the Judiciary Committee's *Highest* recommendation. The Democrats endorsed only one candidate who received the Judiciary Committee's highest recommendation (Joe Williams). The Democrats also endorsed one candidate that was not recommended by the Judiciary Committee.
You get to vote for up to 5 candidates and they all cross-file, so I would encourage everyone to take a minute before May 19 to examine the Judiciary Committee's recommendations and vote wisely: http://www.acba.org/ACBAsite/media/PressReleases051909.asp
I was over in Moon today and not only did a party "bundle" school board candidates, but they also bundled the magistrate, township "supervisors" as they call them out there and the tax collector!
Bundling is basically an advertising tactic, and in that regard can be pretty cost effective. The downside is if you get too many names on a slate, no one can read them on the yard signs anyway.
I agree with Mike about the practice of campaigning at the polling place. Where I grew up in Michigan it is illegal. But until the law changes in this regard in Pennsylvania, I think all parties will feel compelled to do it even though they don't much like it.
On the topic of signs - but off the topic of bundling:
I have seen signs on easments in certain parts of Mt. Lebanon, and I know in at least one case (my property) - the signs were placed without the consent of the adjacent property owners.
I've contacted the zoning board to see what the policy is. Even if it is legal - that strategy seems a bit underhanded to me.
Has anyone else had a similar situation?
Post a Comment
<< Home