Our View: Listening for messages from the election
Since it’s nearly four months before the next election (and then another four months for the next one after that), let’s take a moment to ponder the results of Stanislaus County’s last election. We believe voters delivered some important messages.
Loud and clear
We hope politicians everywhere heard the emphatic message delivered by Oakdale voters. They told those responsible for running Oakdale Irrigation District that they want their business conducted above board, in the open and in their best interests. In landslide victories, challengers Gail Altieri and Linda Santos outpolled incumbents Frank Clark and Al Bairos.
It might have helped the challengers when two weeks before the vote, The Bee reported the board had voted – perhaps illegally – to sell some of the district’s water to growers outside the region.
As we’ve said since 2005, OID’s decision to sell water to finance improvements is sound, and we applaud the district’s efforts to improve salmon populations. But trying to hide water sales by voting as members of the Tri-Dam Project, instead of the OID board, deserved the resounding rebuke voters delivered.
Falling on deaf ears
Of 175,821 eligible voters, only 22.2 percent bothered. That’s not the lowest turnout, by percentage, but close to it. Put another way, 136,645 non-voters allowed others to make the decisions for them. Those “others,” by the way, often have a specific cause, issue or reason to vote – including monetary. The fewer people who vote, the more powerful the voices of those special interests.
Many believe those who don’t pay attention to issues shouldn’t vote, that their uninformed absence is unimportant. Others say democracy depends on participation of the governed. There’s truth in both arguments.
Why don’t more people vote?
First, most voters care less about elections than do politicians. They’re either bored or burned out from having so many – 13 since 2010 in Stanislaus County (with three more coming in 2016).
Second, some voters lose interest because (yes, this is shallow) results aren’t delivered fast enough. You see a touchdown pass, you know the score. You cast a vote ... you wait and wait.
Don’t blame county Registrar of Voters Lee Lundrigan for the slow pace of producing results. Her office is often among the fastest in the state in counting ballots. The fault is with California’s election rules, which give registrars 20 days to complete a process that most nations finish in one.
Two fixes: First, move the deadline for mail-in ballots back two weeks. Having time to count those ballots in advance would mean that on game day (uh, Election Day), final results could be posted within hours of the polls closing. Second, get rid of odd-year elections. Fewer elections equals more participation.
Measuring Modesto
The defeat of a sales tax increase to fund public safety in Modesto was expected. But the failure of Measure I, which would have prevented the city from growing west and north, was a little surprising. It gathered nearly 10,000 signatures to reach the ballot, but drew only 11,311 yes votes. Clearly, Modesto residents are torn between fear of no growth and fear of sprawl. The only “mandate” is for the city to begin a careful, thorough and very public general plan revision process.
While the measures got most of the attention, the most important boxes on the ballot were for electing competent, ethical people to Modesto’s City Council. Members face dozens of decisions to allocate scarce resources, grant (or not) zoning exceptions, set fees for development and choose those who will deliver services. Voters did well in electing Mani Grewal (overwhelmingly), Doug Ridenour and Kristi Ah You. But the proverbial tiebreaker, the mayor, won’t be decided until Feb. 3 when incumbent Garrad Marsh faces newcomer Ted Brandvold in a runoff. This isn’t over yet.
Sounds of silence
It remains disappointing that no one bothered to run for 40 elected positions – mostly on school boards and special districts. Most will be filled by appointment. How long, we wonder, before public disinterest in serving aligns with disinterest in voting.
Congratulations to all who ran and won. And thank you to those who ran but lost. Without you, voters wouldn’t have had a choice – whether or not they chose to make it.
This story was originally published November 12, 2015 at 9:03 PM with the headline "Our View: Listening for messages from the election."