Richard Weiglein: Runoff for mayor is unnecessary; Marsh had most votes

Now that we have had our election and no mayoral candidate received 50 percent plus one of the votes, what do we do? Have another election so our cash-strapped city can spend $100,000 for a run-off. Does this make sense to anyone? It surely doesn’t to me.

Our mayor received the most votes, 10 percent over his closest rival, though we had a ridiculously low turnout at the polls. What makes you think the next election will be any different? When are we going to change this ridiculous rule?

We have a mayor who runs a successful business, supports our veterans, does all kinds of fund-raising events to help the less fortunate; he also is a member of many charity organizations and is a veteran.

When I looked at all the business, professional people and ordinary citizens who worked and supported our Mayor Garrad Marsh, I know we need to keep him in office. So now we wait till Feb. 3, to confirm what those of us who vote already know – Garrad Marsh will remain our mayor; all we have to do is wait for the election board to spend $100,000 needlessly.

This story was originally published November 9, 2015 at 1:07 PM with the headline "Richard Weiglein: Runoff for mayor is unnecessary; Marsh had most votes."