This is not an official blog of the City. It is the work of Mark Kapel who is solely responsible for content.

Search This Blog

Saturday, May 12, 2012

2012 City Election Finale:Vote for no more than two.




The writing in the above box at first appears to be deceptively simple. There are five people, three male, and two female, (although "Connie" has been used for either gender as in Connie Mack manager of the Philadelphia Phillies  circa 1910). The oval by their names indicates that choice is to be made between them. Two ovals appear without names. Either the names have been withdrawn or new names will be added later.On top it says "Nonpartisan Section". I have no idea what that means. . Then it says "City,". Then it says "Commissioner". Then it says "Vote for not more than 2".

That would seem to be the crux of the matter. It doesn''t matter if more names are added or subtracted you can only by  vote for 2. Clearly you must not vote for three or more.The author of the curious box above.  however seems to  be ambivalent  about a proper course of action other than it should exclude voting for three or more. Apparently you  are free  to decide to  vote for none, one , or two. You just can't vote for three or more.So if you are  uncertain, you don't have to vote for two. You  can but it is not mandatory, If it were it would say "vote for two," and it were absolutely  imperative that you do so it would say so by saying "You must vote for Two !" One wonders what the ballots  in Amarillo Texas or Pullman Washington say . Are there freedom of choice communities as opposed to communities where voting a designated number is  required ?  Maybe in Amarillo the ballot says , "Y'all vote for two, hear.




 My interest in the matter, I should disclose is more than passing. I was a candidate in the last election.As a matter of fact I was the proverbial fifth wheel.  That's because I didn't have a real or  apparent running mate.
It was just me. Since my candidate colleagues were stressing "vote" for two, I wondered what my supporters would do with their second vote. Officially and as early as April 9th my campaign issued a statement that said "Vote for Mark and do what you want with your second vote." We believed that to be  politically correct and civic minded response.  It was not however a particularly self serving. A more apt and selfish response, "Vote only for Mark. Step back from the booth  in a diagonal direction to avoid the sensors. Then jam that "baby" ( the tip of your ballot) in the machine and run like heck before anyone discovers what you did." Our staff did, (I must admit )discussed both approaches and decided that the first one was best in keeping the decorum  and correctness of the City of Bloom,field Hills.

Quite frankly I was  aghast at the idea of asking for or in any way sanctioning a vote just for me. That seemed unseemly or as  we used to say on the school playing fields of long ago, not cricket. My wife and I  even discussed what she or for that matter I would  be doing with our second vote.

To tell you the truth, on election day after  casting  one vote for myself,  I stepped away from the booth at 63 degree angle  but  returned  but in a moment forgetfulness returned  to retrieve a  pen discovering in the process  that a single vote ballot did not set off alarms. An urban legend no doubt and in that regard  even the City of Bloomfield is not exempt. What prompted my voting change of  heart ? I have seen too many elections decided by one vote. Further in the realm of back sliding  when friends and neighbors said they voted for me and added for emphasis "just you." I did not launch into all of the above as to why they shouldn't have.

On election day, working the precincts, I told people they had two votes  or could vote for two. Some thanked me for the information. Some said they already knew. A steady stream "we know"s prompted me to be silent on the subject for a while. Late in the day  residents  who professed a tawdry admiration  for rival candidates working the same polling spot received  a folded over piece of campaign  literature that revealed only my name in big and bold with a blunt assertion that they "could vote for two". Some seemed appreciative of the fact  but dispensed with the fawning they had shown the other candidate.  I guess ours was more of a business relationship. To the best of my knowledge I never said "should" or "must "but in all honestly that, might have on occasion,been implied.

While I didn't win the election,my wife who spend the first two months of the year eye rolling when ever I mentioned the possibility of my candidacy, came through tremendously .She even worked  the sun baked  precinct one parking lot on my behalf while I worked the shady groves of  precinct two, and when said she voted for me and "just for me."  I gave her a big kiss.

Our perspectives on Election were of course quite different,. My wife worried about how her hair would look in a picture the Eagle Newspaper  took of Candidate Row in the City Hall Parking lot. Later after the results were in,  I also heard her on the phone, telling friends and family that she was amazed the large number of votes (?) I received  because "he really doesn't know anybody."

On election day 2012 there was much that the candidates  didn't know. In Precinct One,  voters used 830 ballots to cast 1449 votes. If each person  selected 2  the total  vote should have been 1660 which means 211 votes were never used. The same arithmetic  in Precinct Two produces 114 unused votes. In total 325 votes or approximately 16%  ballots cast had room for one more vote. With the exception of my candidacy that could have changed a lot of circumstances. You stay awake at night figuring out all ramifications of 325 more votes.

The unused vote number number might have been higher this year because some residents may have just voted for the schools. However when you analyze it is the responsibility of the candidate to get that vote.
The voter has done the  job by going to the polls. He or she is there with pen in hand and if the candidate  draws a blank who is at fault ?

My better half did  not seem interested in analyzing it. In fact she didn't seem to be paying attention when I mentioned it.. So I asked her if she read what the ballot instructed her to do.

"Vote for no more than two." she said. I said that was correct and complimented  her for remembering that. I asked her she understood exactly what that   meant and got the expression that I was asking the obvious.Further attempts to guide the conversation the back to the possibility of alternate meanings failed. So finally I said  "what it really means is that we are not an LIS couple." In our family of two I sometimes have to fight for attention.

"LIS ? " she said looking at me.

"Living in Sin," I said chuckling and receiving a  spate of head shaking and eye rolling that I  had not experienced  for months.

Then as common  of those who have been married twenty plus years our thoughts returned wordlessly to other matters. What my wife was thinking of  just then I don't know. She was a was Math major who graduated Phi Beta Kappa. Surely she knows the difference between 600 votes and 160. She is also more City of Bloomfield Hills than I am. Once when I said I knew every  street in town, she said she knew every house and dared me with fingers poised to count off each and every domicile, to name one. In retrospect,  "Country Club" was not a good choice on my part.
Maybe she thought the election was not about actually  getting elected  anything.
Maybe she saw it as referendum on whether or not we (or particularly me) were properly in keeping in the mores and social norms of the City. Apparently, based on the glee my wife expressed at the outcome we just squeaked by and would not have to  leave  town any time soon. Others have said it more succinctly . The  Brooklyn Dodgers and their fans managed the feat in four short words. Wait until next year,

Then it was my wife's turn to wonder what I was thinking. Gatching her glance I said aloud
"Wait until next year,"  and got what  I took to be a  wan smile even the Mona Lisa would be proud of.







No comments: