SO Debate area

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 129 Registered: 9-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 8, 2003 - 12:27 am:        1-The username "Moderator" is unwarranted, as it implies a level of impartiality that is obviously not there. Not meant as a slam, everyone's entitled to their opinions! 2-I don't understand why Mr. Rosner considers himself running against Mr. Lackey and Mr. DeVaris, but not his "runningmates." Personally, I'd like to see Mr. Rosner jump ship and join OSO. There are three spots on the ballot, and only two people running on the OSO ballot. 3-Given that there will be at least one incumbent voted back in as a trustee, of the LWV candidates, who would Mssrs. O'Leary, Devaris and Lackey prefer to work with?   David Lackey Citizen Username: Davidlackey Post Number: 14 Registered: 4-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 8, 2003 - 8:00 am:        While all three of us have our own thoughts about the three incumbants, it would be unwise for us to endorse any one over the others. With uncertain voter turnout and five candidates for three openings, statistically, any vote for any incumbant is a vote against Eric and me. Some of our staunchest supporters have told me that they plan to vote only for the two of us for Trustee for that very reason.   sac Citizen Username: Sac Post Number: 788 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Thursday, May 8, 2003 - 10:35 am:        I live in Maplewood, so I don't have to resolve this dilemma personally, but it seems to me that something is wrong with the system if people are considering not voting for one of the positions, solely to ensure that the other two are filled a certain way. If that is the case, how can a voter do their part to make sure that all three positions are filled with the best possible candidates? I've always been a supporter of non-partisan elections, but I'm not sure that this is an ideal alternative.   peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 88 Registered: 8-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 8, 2003 - 10:59 am:        sac -- I previously lived in central NJ -- and we had the same system. virtually ensured that an entire "slate" would never be elected (which may not be a bad thing). but it does increase the politics to an absurd level -- e.g., which "one" or "two" should really be voted for (!?!?). as a result we found that very few voters voted "the line" -- so in essence I believe it compromised the voter's choice. a good post- election debate! Pete   woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 130 Registered: 9-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 8, 2003 - 11:03 am:        Mr. Lackey (or any OSO slate member), Can I ask why you're only running two trustee candidates?   mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 361 Registered: 4-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 8, 2003 - 11:05 am:        A voter should vote for the candidates they think are best. Even if that means splitting a ticket. I understand what David Lackey is saying and it is not in his best interest to pick one from our ticket, but it is in the best interest of the voters to pick whom they think are the best three candidates. As many know, I have always had a problem with running on tickets. I ran as an independent my first time and found out exactly why you cannot run against a ticket. The reason is money. While all the candidates on a ticket might agree on the issues, it does not mean they always will vote as a block or agree on everything going forward. The reason to vote a whole ticket is that you want certain leadership and direction. Clearly our ticket has disagreed on some issues, but we all agree on the direction we want to go and the method on how to reach that goal. I would like to see a record turnout this year. The village has a lot of volunteers and a lot of voices and I think most agree on what they want to see happen in the village. I am always surprised with so many active people in our village yet the turnouts are often very low. I have no understanding why the BOE elections are so low when over 50% (currently 56%) of our property taxes go to education. Let's all remember to vote next Tuesday. Remember to Vote Line A on May 13th www.leadershipwithvision.org   peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 89 Registered: 8-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 8, 2003 - 11:09 am:        sac -- I previously lived in central NJ -- and we had the same system. virtually ensured that an entire "slate" would never be elected (which may not be a bad thing). but it does increase the politics to an absurd level -- e.g., which "one" or "two" should really be voted for (!?!?). as a result we found that very few voters voted "the line" -- so in essence I believe it compromised the voter's choice. a good post- election debate! Pete   Brian O'Leary Citizen Username: Brianoleary Post Number: 1366 Registered: 3-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 8, 2003 - 11:12 am:        Sure ... we are committed to the platform (action, inclusion and accountability, described on the web site). From the outset, we wanted to bring together candidates who, if elected, could work with all elected officials in a constructive manner to better the Village. We don't all think alike, but we are all committed to working in a constructive manner to reach our goals. We are also mindful of the amount of work required to serve as an effective trustee, and we were clear that all members of our slate needed to be able to participate actively in town government. We met with more than a dozen potential candidates. Some opted out for personal reasons (work, etc.), and one that would have rounded out our slate was offered a job transfer of a lifetime early in March, just before the filing deadline. We elected to stay with three candidates (two for trustee) rather than change our expectations. www.opensouthorange.com Vote Line B on May 13th   woodstock Citizen Username: Woodstock Post Number: 132 Registered: 9-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 8, 2003 - 11:30 am:        Mr. O'Leary, I think it was a smart decision. And from both your and Mr. Rosner's posts, I understand the politics of small towns more. Thank you both. Coming from NYC and other large cities, I'm not used to these kinds of dicussions at this level of gov't. It's definitely an eye-opener.   David Lackey Citizen Username: Davidlackey Post Number: 16 Registered: 4-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 8, 2003 - 11:49 am:        Mark explained the reason for running as part of a ticket very well, and Brian beat me to the punch about why we have only three candidates. I do not view the fact that we have three on the slate as a negative. Better to have three candidates with enough overlap in their views to work well together, than to add a fourth at the last minute (after losing one, as Brian mentioned) that we did not have the time to get to know well. And for the record, I am not an advocate of any voter witholding a vote for a candidate they would truly like to see elected.   dgm Citizen Username: Dgm Post Number: 94 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Friday, May 9, 2003 - 8:42 am:        I would suggest splitting the ticket. The ticket's generally serve the incumbents more than the challengers, especially if there is a popular incumbent on one of them. Even though both sets of candidates took risks by forming tickets, if any voter feels that the Village would be best served by making individual choices, they should vote their conscience. Elect the O-S-O challengers (Vote Line B) and re-elect Mark Rosner.