Is there such a thing as a foolish vote? Proponents of ballot question 5, which would have changed Hillsborough's form of government from Township Committee to Mayor-Council might say yes.
If you've been reading the letters to the editor and browsing the internet forums these past several weeks in the run-up to the election, it's easy to form the opinion that the 40% who voted for change think the 60% who voted against it are fools. After all, according to the "vote yes" contingent, the vote no crowd was swayed by a big money campaign, duped by lies, and cheated out of their vote.
Well, it's easy to say that now! Of course, those of us who were skeptical from the start - before the campaign - are told that we didn't have an "open mind". No matter that the only individuals in this process legally required to have open minds were the Charter Study Commissioners - and at least one of them, probably two, had their minds made up before the study began.
And here's the twist - I haven't met anyone who voted no on question 5 who thought anyone that voted yes cast a "foolish vote". People that voted yes obviously felt that having a directly elected mayor and separate branches of government trumped any problems or uncertainties of the Mayor-Council form. And that was a perfectly reasonable and appropriate reason to vote yes.
As we see from the outcome Tuesday, it appears that it was unwise to castigate no-voters and fence-sitters for their personal choices. Truly, there are no "foolish votes", only foolish people.
I will be among the first to be labeled as "calling voters who defeated the question foolish" although those words never came out of my mouth. If you read my comment on your last blog entry, of two days ago, you should surely see that I acknowledged your opinion with respect. BTW, you did not respond to my comment.
ReplyDeleteWhile I attribute a significant percentage of the majority decision to influence of a well-funded negative campaign (as I feel that those voters who did not take time to educate themselves are most vulnerable to be influenced solely by campaign literature) I never called any voter a fool.
When the Internet you and I both frequent ranks me among those who insult other people, perhaps you might comment to the contrary in this regard?
Valerie, I hope you will believe me when I say that I did not have you in mind at all when I wrote this blog. I wish I had - after reading your quotes in the Courier today, wow, I would have to be a super psychic or something!
ReplyDeleteBut all kidding aside - it's not about you. You're all right with me!
Now, on to substance. Would you agree that a person who was indeed properly educated and well-informed about Q5 could conscientiously vote either "no" or "yes"? I would.
Of course! Too late for more profound responses. But you can read some of my opinion (albeit disregarded by most) on NJ.com. Tomorrow?
ReplyDeletePS - I didn't mean that your blog was about me - I just used it as a jumping off point, predicting the responses (from other posters) that I knew I would be subjected to, one way or another.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I stress to all: there is a big difference between saying that voters may have BEEN fooled and voters ARE fools. Those who might most easily be fooled are those who know the least to begin with. This leaves out you, Greg, and lots of others who kept apprised of the process.
But so many voters knew practically nothing a few weeks ago, and these were the voters most vulnerable to influence.