Vote in our election poll
-
- January
- 25
Over in the right-hand sidebar, under our coverage of the 35th annual March for Life, we have a new poll.
New York state, it sometimes feels, has elections every five minutes.
Here’s a look:
Feb. 5Â —Â Presidential primary
March 18Â —Village elections (though some villages have fall elections)
May 20Â —Â School board and budget elections
Sept. 16Â —Â Primaries for the November general election
Nov. 4 — General election (president, Congress, state Legislature, some local — which can include county, town or village)
I’m curious to hear what you think — should all elections be combined to one date? Is there good reason to have school and village elections separate from other elections? Primaries, I’d suppose, should be on separate dates, but what do you think?
Yes, the poll is utterly unscientific, but we’d still like to hear what you think. Just don’t stuff the ballot box!
Feel free to add your comments here about the reasons you voted the way you did.
This entry was posted
on Friday, January 25th, 2008 at 10:40 am by Amy Vernon.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: del.icio.us Digg Google Technorati Yahoo! | 
Print
| 
Email
Consolidating the many different election days would make for elections that more accurately reflect the community. As they currently stand, the village and school elections disproportionately reflect the interest involved. School elections, for example, have a greater percentage of parents of school age children voting than you see in a November general election (the PTAs are excelent 'get out the vote' organizers). The schools have an interest in keeping this system in place due to the general support parents have for school budgets. There may be several good reasons for having the off elections (easier to get out a candidate's message when you don't have to fight through national or state election coverage, cheaper advertising, getting important school budgets through), but promoting voter participation is clearly not one of them.