After the polls closed, I anxiously watched the vote returns as Republican Ulrich, came in second, despite a overwhelming, yet splintered, democratic turnout.
A 50% plurality rule, and automatic runoff of the top 2 candidates, should be adapted in these cases.
While dashing about the city yesterday, I found it a bit disconcerting that hardly anyone was wearing the "I VOTED" sticker on their lapel, and a few folks even came up to ask about the election and/or what the Public Advocate did.
That's why the news of a low turnout is about as surprising as the news of another MTA fare hike...SAD.
6
@N. Smith My polling place in Brooklyn NEVER has the "I voted" stickers. Seems like only Manhattan can afford them. SADDER...
1
@John
You're missing the point I was trying to make about an uninformed or otherwise indifferent electorate in this election.
It's not the "sticker" that's the problem here.
Oh, and the folks I know in Queens got stickers.
2
@N. Smith You're missing the point I was making. Just because you didn't see "folks" wearing stickers, you automatically & judgmentally assume they haven't voted. Peculiar. In the 20 years of my voting in Brooklyn, I've yet to receive a sticker on Any Election Day.
$773 million (3/4 of a billion dollars) spent on a failed government program and no one is held accountable?
8
So many people running for office these days. reminds me of "Survivor", where you do almost anything to position yourself for victory. Promote this, join with that, back-stab this---voila. But no matter, the groups are diverse and it certainly beats the past when the political parties themselves chose who was running.
A criteria I have is not to ever vote for someone who runs on gender or race. Afraid that Melissa Mark-Viverito qualifies for that category. She did not just run as a Hispanic woman--she told anyone who would listen not to vote for a white male. Whoa--if a white male told everyone not to vote for a Hispanic female he would never get my vote either. There are certain things that are unacceptable.
This political springboard position will be interesting to watch. In years past this ombudsman position meant little--now it is desirable to all. interesting and a bit funny.
12
Interesting to watch indeed.
Jumaane Williams with his conservative Christian bigotry, his coddling of criminals, his grandstanding at every protest event, and his disregard -- pardon my middle-class conventions -- of sartorial protocol, evident in yesterday's group photo of all 17 candidates -- is an unpleasant harbinger of things to come in New York City.
Bill de Blasio is boor enough; here comes Mr. Williams.
5
@B. - My problem with voting yesterday was that of the 17 choices, there were four that I would be equally extremely happy with in that position. I thought maybe I should go over, be counted as a voter, then not choose - but I was assured from searching that a blank vote meant nothing, so I didn't go.
For this one-year gig, the question of "Would I trust this person to be first in line to succeed the Mayor" really got pretty much no play, as our Mayor shows no sign of resigning this year and is healthy [we're certainly paying to fund that - had to get that Brooklyn YMCA dig in!].
For the next go-round, suitability to be next in line for Mayor will almost definitely be a very important issue, possibly as much as a Vice President's suitability might be. It just didn't mean much right now for the year. I don't see the position a year from now as being his to hold on to, like a typical incumbent. I'm sure that next year will attract people who didn't enter this short-term gig, and will also attract many people who didn't show up at the polls.
2