Reform runoff elections to cut costs

TimesLedger Newspapers
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like TimesLedger on Facebook.

The runoff election for city public advocate Oct. 1 drew only about 6.5 percent of registered Democrats citywide. The election cost about $13 million. This works out to about $70 for every vote cast.

When I went to vote at my polling place in Bayside, there were five people at the table with four interpreters sitting in an adjacent lobby, plus one person directing voters to their respective district table. That is 10 people for one election district. Repeat that similar scenario in all five boroughs and one can see how the cost of this election adds up for this low-turnout election.

This system needs to be overhauled. The process for voting in municipal elections must be re-examined and modified to cut costs. I do not blame the people employed to work at the polls on Primary Day for this. They were just trying to do their jobs.

There are other ways of handling the process, including having instant runoffs, thus avoiding the need for a separate runoff election. Many people think there should be no runoffs at all. It is not the fault of the candidates if many people seek a particular office, making it harder for any individual candidate to rack up a large plurality of votes.

That $13 million spent on this runoff election could have been used to hire more teachers, sustain after-school programs for children, give better services to our senior citizens or plant and care for additional trees to enhance our communities. The list goes on and on.

As citizens, we need to insist that wasteful spending be curbed and that well-thought-out strategies for voting procedures be put into place in order that all voters have their voices heard in the most effective way.

Henry Euler


Posted 12:00 am, October 16, 2013
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like TimesLedger on Facebook.

Reader feedback

One better from Queens says:
Why not cut costs by eliminating this position. The most powerful public advocate is the voting booth.
Oct. 17, 2013, 2:43 pm

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

Community News Group

Don’t miss out!

Stay in touch with the stories people are talking about in your neighborhood:

Optional: Help us tailor our newsletters to you!