New Haven Independent

Posted by: -FairHavener- | November 9, 2007 2:18 PM

I already posted my theories. I will be glad to post them again - just not at the moment. As far as solutions go, I like a combination of the ideas posted by Charlie and New Haven Tea Party elsewhere.

We need to either set up a fine (a tax if you will) for people who do not register and especially those who register but do not vote.

Or, offer a tax break for registering and a fine (tax) for not voting.

This can be applied to all residents, or just those who live and own property in New Haven.

There is NO reason why "The City" shouldn't stand behind this - except the one reason, which is my theory. "The City" wants to put a tax on anything they can. Why not put a tax on one of the most important issues this town faces? It would kill two birds with one stone.

DeStefano, is low voter turnout important to you? Do you even care (I mean publicity wise)?

DeStefano, is generating enough revenue to support your spending a problem? Could you use an extra few bucks?

DeStefano, can you please give me one GOOD reason why something like this wouldn't work?

Posted by: -FairHavener- | November 9, 2007 2:31 PM

Woops, forgot a qualifier in that last question.

When I asked "why something like this wouldn't work?" what I mean by that is "work for the residents of New Haven" not You & Co.

Posted by: Chris Gray | November 9, 2007 2:55 PM

The first people I ever gave any Green Party literature to were Ben DiLieto and Bart Giamatti, so I don't think that I am giving away any State secrets here. I've never been any less frank about what I plan do or have done than Brian McGrath.

For example, when I dropped my gloves in the office, on a visit ordered by former-Dick Lee publicist and then-Elder Newspaper editor Eric Sandahl, of the once and future Town Democratic Chairman Art Barbieri and he handed them back to me, we both knew what it meant. He never figured that I intended to stay poor all of my life, though. He probably could not envision his own mortality, either.

O.K. Here is what I did.

Back in 1989, I am fairly certain it was, the Realo Greens had had their quiet, backroom decision that Matt Borenstein would be their candidate for Mayor. He had run before, as a member of a pre-Green progressive coalition and was a good spokesperson for the platform.

The major problem I saw in his candidacy was that he planned, as a teacher, to take his summer vacation at the time of the Democratic primary. In my opinion, whatever alternative campaign there is has to use that window of opportunity to present their case, rather than wait, frittering away energy, trying to save it for just before the general election.

Since Matt would be gone, I argued, why shouldn't we hold our own primary. Actually, we probably called it a caucus, but it served the same purpose in the media. It was a name to hang a story on.

When the first Green Party meeting I attended in '85, well before Matt and I filed papers to legally form the party, addressed the question of who in the room would be willing to stand for office, I was the first and only one who said yes. Obviously, some were being reticent if not disingenuous.

I offered to be the losing candidate in '89, but the one who would speak to our issues when the voters would be listening. By wonderful co-incidence, Robie Pooley, a strong Republican alder, also ran against a challenger, offering a three-way dialog.

When Chris Rohr, the editorialist at WFSB criticized the "four candidates for Mayor in New Haven" for failing to address funding for their visions of the city, suggesting appealing for Federal aid from the President, I thought the heavens had opened to us. I got to do an editorial reply pointing out the six candidates for Mayor, and our demand that Yale pay and that Bush pressure his Alma Mater to do so.

It was to air several times but, as Bart Giamatti died two hours after the taping, I imagine they felt it was in bad taste to have a Green saying "make Yale pay" during the love fest for the "beloved one". It aired once, though.

This campaign helped spur the next development, the Progressive Alliance, when already disaffected Democrats could run in the primary and as Alliance candidates, nominally representing two parties, in the general election. Thus, the first victory by Toni Harp.

Finally, DiLieto got tired of the hassle of challengers, plus I don't think his health was good.

My Dad used to say, "Sell Holidays." In politics, you have to sell press events, rallies, conventions, primaries and general elections, but it is really the same thing.

He also said, "Don't promise more than you can deliver, on time, and more and/or better than the promise, if you can."

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 9, 2007 3:07 PM

I stand by Instant-runoff voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

It will be new and exciting. But what it does is it get rid of the voting grid lock we our in.

Posted by: Chris Gray | November 9, 2007 7:59 PM

Taxing people who don't vote or rewarding those who do debases the process. It is coercion or enticement and, while at least not partisan, it does seem contrary to the concept of a free and fair vote. It certainly seems illegal from what has been written in other threads of the voting rights act.

People should be convinced to vote and that means feet on the street, other people speaking with them and, as Paul points out, a lot of candidates puts a lot of their and their supporters' feet on the street.

Even bears seem to respond to people speaking sense with them.

We have a problem here and sitting home typing our complaints to each other on our keyboards won't solve it. Taxing people who don't vote or rewarding those who do debases the process. It is coersion or enticement and, while at least not partisan, it does seem contrary to the concept of a free and fair vote. It certainly seems illegal from what has been written in other threads of the voting rights act.

People should be convinced to vote and that means feet on the street, other people speaking with them and, as Paul points out, a lot of candidates puts a lot of their and their supporters feet on the street.

Even bears seem to respond to people speaking sense with them.

We have a problem here and sitting home typing our complaints to each other on our keyboards won't solve it.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | November 9, 2007 8:12 PM

How About Term Limits!!! This is The Best Way To Go!!!

Posted by: bugupit | November 9, 2007 9:43 PM

As I said earlier this week, I did not vote. Big John was going to win. Elser is not for me. Ferrucci's campaign never got serious. The race for Mayor did not bring me to the polls. City Town Clerk -- who cares, and was there more than one name on the ballot? Alderman? My guy was unapposed. Yes, I respect my American right to vote. But this is not democracy and I had no reason to vote.

Ballot questions! That might bring New Haveners out to the polls! ("God forbid!" say John, Susan and Sharon) What if we had had a non-binding ballot questions: "Should the Mayor of New Haven's annual salary be raised by 22%?" Whatever the outcome, I would be more comfortable with the Board of Alderman's upcoming vote if the People had been given the opportunity to express their opinion.

Remember the Charter Revision Question? DeStefano's last defeat. He pushed for All-Or-Nothing, and got Nothing. Those issues, those various questions about the structure and conduct of our City... somebody check me on the numbers, but I believe that type of democratic vote helps, not miracle pill but helps, bring voters to the Polls.

Now, truly, I believe the only way to get the Mayor to take an interest in voter participation, to push His Chair and His Regsitrar and His Aldeermen to run registration tables and all the other efforts, is TO KEY THE SALARY INCREASES OF THE MAYOR TO VOTER PARTICIPATION!

Peace.

Posted by: Harry | November 9, 2007 10:07 PM

Not much to add to Charles Pillsbury's comments. I feel the major reason for lower voter turnout in any election is the growing perception -- which is reality based -- that such voting is futile as incumbency trumps everything else. As in the US House of Representatives where incumbents win 95+ percent of the time, so with local elections where incumbents stay term after term -- voters see the futility of voting.

When it is obvious that the Mayor will win again why would anyone bother to vote? When I saw a young man posting "deStefano for Mayor" posters in Westville on Monday night I was so surprised I stopped to ask what made him do it. He replied that he was a student and was very interested in the elections.

IN the US House of Representatives the main problem is that the representatives get to choose their voters by the power they have to draw district boundaries. In New Haven I cannot tell whether disctrict boundaries are skewed to guarantee a Democrat will always win, but this may not be necessary in a state as heavily Democratic as Connecticut.

Given the power of incumbency the only way to increase representative turnover is by imposing term limits which is a bit undemocratic. It would however tend to make the elections more of a real contest and attract more voters.

Posted by: Clifford W. Thornton, Jr. | November 10, 2007 7:22 AM

To all the people who don't vote--Do you or do you
not deserve what ensues? It is an overwhelmingly yes!!! Most people will say my vote does not count. Let us not forget Al Gore and Florida. I am afraid we here in this country are in decline and it will continue. By not voting we let the gangsters take over. We send a strong message to politicians that says we don't care. This is one big reason our rights have been slowly eroding.
Good luck.

Posted by: Allan Brison | November 10, 2007 11:33 AM

A correction on Charlie Pillsbury's comments in the article. Ward 10 voter turnout is not consistently above 1000. In fact, the high in recent years was approximaterly 850. This occurred in 2001, when I ran against Ed the first time.

In years where there is only one unopposed candidate the turnout is much smaller. In 2005, for example, Ed, running unopposed, drew only 335 votes.

This year it was 696, a bit down from the high, but significantly more than when the Alder race is unopposed.

To build on Charlie's comments on how to build more interest in elections: I agree that Sunday as voting day would be a big boost. I would also reccommend a late spring rather than a fall election day. The warmer weather and greater daylight hours would lend a big boost not only to election day itself but to the campaigning as well.

Allan Brison
Ward 10, Alderman-Elect

Posted by: Charlie Pillsbury | November 10, 2007 11:36 AM

comments from Allan Brison, the New Haven Green Party's newest elected city official:

I think that Charlie's suggestions are very valid. I think that a Sunday election day would be terrific. I would add that elections should be held in late spring when the days are long. This would help grass roots door to door efforts versus big media campaigns. Also the day should be in the middle to late in the month so it doesn't sneak up so fast. As long as the month is Oct, a Nov voting day seems far away to most voters. This takes away so much from the last couple of weeks of campaigning.

I would like to see an election day of the 3rd Sunday in May or June.

One minor correction to Charlie's comments about voter turnout in ward 10. In 2001, the only competiitive ward 10 general election aldermanic race in years, there were only about 855 votes, not over 1000. In other years, where there has been no aldermanic challenge, the turnout is in the 300's. I believe in 2005, for example, Ed only got about 350 unopposed.

I believe the final vote count this time was 393-303 or 696 total. I had expected 1000 total because I thought that the mayor's team would be directing more to the ward 10 effort than they did in 2001. They apparently thought ward 25 was the greater threat.

Posted by: Ralph Ferrucci | November 10, 2007 8:58 PM

Hello everyone,
This year I have run on one issue that the Green Party of New Haven and friends of mine Matt Borenstein and Rick Wolf ran off of in the past which was tax Yale and not us. I got criticized for not being very environmental on my issues.

There are many reasons for this, even though I am an environmentalist, Sundays I Would work with Food Not Bombs (foodnotbombs.net) I am someone who believes no one should go hungry.

Some of you believe that I should speak more about environmental issues.

To that all I can say is join the Green Party and help us talk about the issues that you want us to talk about.

Within the next month I want to start an outreach campaign in all neighborhoods of all communities in this city.

You can help by joining us instead of criticizing. Call me at home at 203-865-7203 to discuss ideas or to join. Be a part of the solution, not the problem.
Ralph Ferrucci

Posted by: bugupit | November 10, 2007 11:00 PM

Cliff Thornton: I am sorry, but I see no correspondance between Florida 2000 and New Haven 2007. Did the race come down to dozens in a recount? Was disenfranchisement and election day voter suppression and issue? I say no. I say the problem in New Haven in 2007, and many years prior, is that the DeStefano machine works hard enough to ensure an overwhelming victory, suppresses true democracy (increased voter registration, voter outreach, get out the vote efforts) that might benefit any candidate, and focusses on what is needed for machine candidates to win. I did not vote. We get what ensues? I prefer DeStefano to GOP Elser. I prefer DeStefano to unprepared disorganized not serious Ferrucci. So if I had voted in a competitive race, it would have been for the incumbent. Looney. Perez. Fernandez. Pillsbury. They might have been challegers to consier voting for.

I support Ralph's ward by ward Green outreach. One way or another, let's make New Haven a competitive democracy. But the candidates have to be viable.

Posted by: Ct Operator | November 11, 2007 8:52 AM

Where is this feared "New Haven Machine" that everybody moans and groans about all the time. Any machine that is 15.8% efficient cannot be as fearsome the folks on these pages make it out to be. Perhaps "the machine" may just be in the imagination of people who cannot figure out how to organize a political campaign or whose ideas do not have the support to win one in the city? The way to win Aldermanic and Mayoral races is to have candidates that are willing to work hard meeting people (like Allan Brison) or to have ideas that resonate with the public (like John DeStefano). Talk is cheap in politics. It is maintaining an energized activist base to spread the word that is difficult. The job of the Green Party should now be to build on their aldermanic base, something that they have not done in the past. Do not start an"outreach campaign in all neighborhoods", start one where you have the chance to pick up another seat or two on the BOA, and concentrate on that.

Posted by: ralph ferrucci | November 11, 2007 1:47 PM

To bugupit;
First off, The Greens were more organized than the Republicans were even in the Mayoral Race. My campaign set up speaking events at Senior Centers where we invited all candidates for Mayor to join us.

As for Serious, this was always a serious campaign.

To Ct Operator:
You misunderstand whaty it is meant when I say outreach to all wards. I plan on doing this either one or two wards at a time.

During my campaign I spent endless days in the Hill and Dixwell areas talking to area residents. If we want to win some serious campaigns it will be in the three wards of the Hill, the 4 wards of Fair Haven and the 3 wards of Dixwell/Newhall.

My work with the Greens is building the party which I did this year especially ion the African American community.
Ralph Ferrucci

Posted by: New Haven Tea Party | November 11, 2007 4:15 PM

Ct Operator: John DeStefano does not have ideas that resonate with the public - the public doesn't vote and he controls the handfull that do. His $25K raise resonates? yeah right...passing on the tax bills of others to working families? that resonates? Endorsing illegal immigrants and hamstringing the police resonates? I've seen no evidence of overwhelming public support. Less than 4,000 at last report, out of 123,000 residents had bought into the id card and only 8000 or so voted for DeStefano. I hardly call that an endorsement of DeStefano ideas.

Posted by: -FairHavener- | November 13, 2007 11:46 AM

"Taxing people who don't vote or rewarding those who do debases the process."

I absolutely disagree. How so? Do you have an example?

I think this type of reasoning confuses, or conflates, "Voting" with "Morals". You know the fallacy that a person is moral or acting morally when in fact all of his decisions are based on being rewarded for doing good and punished for doing bad.

In that type of argument people are trying to point out how religion used as a basis of morals is fraudulent. For example, if all your life you were good, but you were really only good because you didn't want to go to hell, or because you wanted to go to heaven, etc, you are NOT really a moral person.

But, we are talking about voting - not the bible or religions.

If you register to vote you get a tax break. If you don't show up to vote you pay a fine (or any other iteration that people have pointed out). We pay fines for not showing up to the meter with change when parking don't we?

Does taxing people who don't show up to the meter with a quarter debase parking?

We can certainly agree that voting is more important than parking can't we?

Posted by: Mr G | November 13, 2007 4:24 PM

I for one would rather have informed voters, who know what they are voting for and make the effort because they care about the state of the city, as opposed to a bunch of people who vote purely to avoid paying a fine. But some people like quantity over quality...

This really is the nature of democracy, people are more interested in what happens at the top levels of the democratic system (why the biggest turn out is for presidential elections) even if it doesn't directly affect them as much as the guys who make the decisions on the paving of the streets. That stuff is pretty much a snooze fest... I am not saying it is right, but that's the way it is and you can't force people to care about ward politics.

That said, I am extremely enthusiastic that the voters in New Haven who do inform themselves and make the effort to vote once again overwhelmingly reelected one of the most principled and progressive mayors in the country. Yay DeStefano!

Posted by: Bill Saunders | November 14, 2007 12:50 PM

Maybe next time around, in absence of any real opposition, we should do a write-in candidate drive in every unopposed ward. You can register as a write-in candidate up to two weeks before the election. I'll even start a PAC which will provide direct funding for the first-class stamp to get the paperwork to the Secretary of State (since alderman can't qualify for the Democracy Fund).

If voters can't believe in themselves, who can they believe in! Plus you get a nifty official document from the SOS with your name on it for your trouble (suitable for framing & better than the sticker!). Hell, my friend Hecky will even sell you the frame!

Tell me a couple hundred disenchanted citizens running for public office wouldn't make a national stir.

Everyone might end up a little more educated about the election process, and exercising their franchise, as well.