|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
I’m beginning to think some of the departments in New Bedford City Hall are on automatic pilot.
The mantra on William Street seems to be “This is the way we do it,” and that’s the end of all discussion.
It’s only been weeks since I learned that the Treasurer’s Office paid out longevity pay to elected officials for 35 years because “it’s always been done that way.” Now I’ve learned that the Elections Office for the last 25 years has haphazardly switched back and forth between accurate instructions on the councilor-at-large ballot and inaccurate ones.
I’m talking about the instructions related to the long-held New Bedford political tradition of “plunking” your vote in the City Council at-large race.
The Elections Office, for some reason, over the last 2 1⁄2 decades has been inconsistent about how the ballot instructions in the councilor-at-large race are written. The result is that voters in some years knew clearly what their options were while in others they did not. This is important because with the wrong instructions, incumbents and political insiders have a big advantage.
I’ll explain that advantage in a minute.
Under Maria Tomasia, the former long-time elections commission chair, the ballot instructions for the at-large race went back and forth between “Vote for Not More Than Five” and “Vote for Five.”
In 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009, the instructions said “Vote for Not More Than Five.” Then in 2011 and 2013, the instructions switched to “Vote for Five” for some reason.
In 2015, and 2017, the instructions went back to “Vote for Not More than Five.” Then in 2019, the second election cycle after current Election Commission Chair Manny DeBrito had taken over, the instructions went back to “Vote for Five.” They have stayed that way through the 2021, 2023, and 2025 preliminary elections.
But now, seemingly out of the blue, and per approval of the offices of the City Solicitor and the Secretary of State, the ballot instructions will be changed to “Vote for No More than Five” for this year’s final election.
I’ll explain what I think led to the switches in the ballot wording in a minute.
But in the meantime, you might be asking what difference does all this make?
It makes a big difference because of the longstanding New Bedford tradition of “plunking” in the at-large election.
Early and absentee voting are taking place in New Bedford now. The deadline for obtaining an absentee ballot by mail was Oct. 28 at 5 p.m. The deadline for casting an early vote in person at the Elections office is Nov. 3 at noon. Credit: Jack Spillane / The New Bedford Light
Plunking in the at-large race means you choose to cast fewer than five votes among the candidates who are running. In the preliminary at-large contest, there is no limit to the number of candidates running; in the final election, there is a limit of 10 candidates, and the first five finishers become councilors-at-large.
Plunking is designed to give a voter’s favored candidate an advantage over his or her opponents. It is most often accomplished by voting for just one candidate, but it can also be done by plunking two, three or four candidates. Plunking is accomplished by casting fewer than the five maximum votes allowed in the contest.
Let me explain more.
Say you have a candidate you really like. You think they are the only honest person running, or the smartest, or the most progressive or the most conservative. You can “plunk” your vote and deprive four of the other candidates of any votes on your ballot. Meanwhile, if your neighbor down the street does not “plunk” and follows the ballot instructions to “Vote for Five” and selects five separate candidates, he or she will have only one-fifth of the influence on the final results that you, the plunker, has.
Incumbents and political insiders in New Bedford know all about plunking and plunking is a big part of how certain candidates always seem to rise to the top of the at-large race, especially the incumbents. I’m not saying it’s the only reason, but it’s a significant reason, and can be a deciding reason in a close race.
For example, say the difference between the fifth- and sixth-place finishers in the at-large race is two votes. The plunkers could easily have made the difference.
Now it’s not just the incumbents who know about plunking. The best, most organized, most well-connected challengers also know about it. They are also likely to tell their supporters to “plunk” just one vote for them. And that gives these challengers the same four-vote advantage as the incumbents who know about the practice. All the other candidates in the at-large race who might have received one of the supporters’ five votes have instead received none.
In fact, it was a supporter of one of the challengers who complained to me about the ballot instructions this year, as well as two years ago. The instructions said “Vote for Five” instead of “Vote for Not More Than Five” as the person complaining pointed out that often had in the past.
You know who doesn’t know about plunking?
The average voter in the at-large race doesn’t know about it.
So say you’re a conscientious person, you care about your local government, you are interested in having your say about it. But when you go into the voting booth and you see instructions that say “Vote for Five,” you follow the instructions and vote for five. A lot of these voters will think they have to vote for five and that’s where the advantage of the political insiders comes in. The insiders know you don’t have to vote for five. You can vote for any number up to, and including five, so one, two, three, four or five.
To give you an idea of how common plunking is, Jonathan Darling, the city’s public information officer, told me that out of a possible 21,340 votes that could have been cast in this year’s preliminary at-large election, a total of 4,785 votes were left uncast. Some of those were unintentional plunks, but many of them were certainly strategic.
After the challenger’s supporter complained to me about the problem, I asked Election Commission Chair DeBrito about it.
I like Manny and have worked well with him, but he seemed entirely flustered by my question. He told me he only has so many options to choose from as to what the ballot instructions will say. When I asked him who is giving the options for instructions, he said the vendor who supplies the election materials.
I told DeBrito that doesn’t make sense. The vendor works for the city and the city can insist on any instructions it wants.
That’s when the very efficient women who run the machinery of the Elections Office helped me to go back through every one of the elections of the last 25 years. And that’s how I found out that the instructions have gone back and forth between “Vote for Five” and “Vote for Not More Than Five,” for no apparent reason other than what the city’s election vendors are delivering.
The next time I saw DeBrito he told me he was heading “upstairs,” which I assumed was either the solicitor’s office, the mayor’s office or both, to see if the language of the ballot instructions could be changed.
And sure enough, he soon told New Bedford Light reporter Colin Hogan that the instructions for the at-large ballot would be changed for the upcoming final election. Changing the language halfway through an election cycle left me wondering whether the city could be vulnerable to a challenge from one of the losers in the preliminary election, but because of the withdrawal of Scott Lima, there was only one candidate, Carlos Maiato, and he was far behind.
I’m glad that DeBrito took the complaint seriously and that going forward, the language on the election ballots will be changed. But I’m distressed that it took a complaint from a voter and an inquiry by the press to accomplish it.
I’m told that DeBrito is saying that my inquiry was only one factor, but I find that hard to believe, given that he decided to make the change halfway through this election cycle and immediately after my query.
All of this reminds me of the fact that nobody at City Hall ever asked about the legal validity of longevity pay for elected officials for three-plus decades. Nobody also evidently ever asked about accuracy of the ballot instructions in the councilor-at-large races.
It’s not just City Hall but it’s we the voters who are sleepy. Maybe that’s why we are getting the government we deserve.
Email Jack Spillane at jspillane@newbedfordlight.org.
Wow. A way to vote that, yes, as an average voter I would not have known or realized that this is strategic way to vote. I had to read this story three times to truly understand. I’ve always voted for five candidates and will still continue to do so. I think. Thank you Mr. Spillane. And New Bedford Light ? I learn so much from how you inform issues. Thank you !
Proud informed Plunker in every election.
There’s another problem with the ballot besides plunking. How do some people get extra information added about them. On the Oct. ballot there’s biographical data like “veteran school committee member” next to a candidate’s name. That shouldn’t be allowed. Even information on who the incumbents are gives too much of an advantage – it’s priming the voter.
Gee, Jack, it never occurred to me that I had to vote for five candidates! I would have thought that was un-democratic – to be required to vote for a candidate I didn’t want to vote for. I hope no one else thought that.
No legal voting in the US ever requires a voter to vote for a candidate they do not want to vote for.
I didn’t know I was plunking either! Good to have it all cleared up!
In the past, “plunking” was a well known technique known as “voting a bullet”.
Perhaps, the voting instructions should say “VOTE FOR UP TO FIVE CANDIDATES”.
As Rebecca Barnes notes, the “Vote for FIVE” verbiage is more “demanding/commanding” than “instructional”. She is correct in stating that there is not a requirement to “Vote for FIVE’ should you wish not todo this.
Voters will vote for who they want 1-5 what should be your issue is that renters don’t vote in the same numbers that homeowners do. Why? They are the most vulnerable since this Mayor vetoed rent control. They should be at the election booths in record numbers. The media outlets are not involved like they were in the past. SHAMEFUL.
This entire opinion piece is some strategic convoluted reverse psychology trick to get voters to withhold their votes. Plunking is not a thing. Voting for all five allowed has the same effect as ranked choice voting would.
No wonder people are confused by this nonsense. It doesn’t make sense. Why would i not vote for my favorite candidates?
Not voting for all of the candidates i can vote for is literally depriving them of a vote.
Reader, stop falling for this nonsense and vote for your favorite candidate, up to the number allowed per election if you want. In this election it’s up to 5 for city council.