Move Ward Council Races and Mayor and at Large Council to November
By NJ State law (see: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/legis/196.pdf) a term can only be lengthened and not shortened and thus the Mayor's Office and at large would go to November 2013 and all Ward Council people would be extended until November 2015. Politically you have to move both Ward and At Large Seats or the other side will cry foul.
Pros:
• The theory is that it will increase voter turnout.
• It is stated that you will also reduce the number of elections. Keep in mind that the School Board elections are currently every year in April.
Cons:
• If you have a runoff it is likely in December. That won't help voter turnout.
• If you adopt an instant runoff strategy someone could win with well less than 50 % of the vote especially if you have 5-6 candidates. In fact someone could even win with less than 20% plurality.
• Do we really think it will improve voter turnout?
• Doesn't the thought of extending the terms of Tim Occhipinti, Beth Mason and Mike Russo just turn your stomach? For Zimmer's detractors wouldn't they feel the same?
Have only 5 At Large City Council Seats and run the Mayor in November
A version of this was once proposed by former Mayor Roberts and seconded by Scott Delea. Wow, there is a think tank if you ever had one before! Just kidding. By having the Mayor run with the entire Council you will only have a municipal election every 4 years.
Pros:
• Fewer City Council people means a small cost savings.
• Fewer City Council people in theory means shorter meetings.
• All at large seats means an end to the petty ward bickering and pandering. The City would be viewed as a whole.
• The numbers favor reform/good governance provided it is unified and can get a good turnout. The Old Guard has a ceiling that is lower but their voters always vote.
Cons:
• Some consider having Wards important. Rebuttal- Boundaries are politically motivated.
• Dave Roberts and Scott Delea support this. Not saying that it is necessarily bad but with those two supporting it something could be afoul with it.
• This is all or nothing for 4 years. A loss by reform would be a 4 year setback instead of a two year one.
• A super majority would be 3-2 if 60% of the vote is needed. If 66% is needed you have to be 4-1.
Have 3 Super Ward Council People, 2 at large and run them altogether with the Mayor in November
Pros:
• Fewer City Council people means a small cost savings.
• Fewer City Council people in theory means shorter meetings.
Cons:
• This all depends on how the Super wards are drawn up.If chunks of the Housing projects are split up amongst the three Super Wards this could be bad for reform/good governance.
• A super majority would be 3-2 if 60% of the vote is needed. If 66% is needed you have to be 4-1.
Leave it the Way it is currently
Pros:
• Change is scary.
• Some people are not confident that this will help the situation with voter turnout so what is the point of change?
• Do we really want to extend the terms of Tim Occhipinti, Beth Mason and Mike Russo even one day?
Cons:
• Elections will still occur every two years.
• Voter burnout.
• This will result in making it difficult to maintain progress as reform/good governance.
Again, feel free to add to the discussion in the comments. At the Hoboken Journal your opinion is valued not censored like at Hoboken 411. ◦
